7 A-AGG 957 CORPS O ENINEERS SEATTLE WASH SEATTLE DISTRICT F/ 13/2THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES STUDY, INTERIM REPORT, YAKIM-(ETC(U)

UNCLASSIFIEDML

2 [MITlIffflllff

~. r~flN 3i4YRIM

uni0

'7GAP~

.. '10M

v N. . ? . no

4U~ GAP8

-. _ j 1.

A 8 L. ... ... ..

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 'When Dte r rfepr0dREPOR DOC MENT TION PAGEREAD IN;sTRUCTIONS

11 BEFORE COMPLETING FORM,'EP RT NUMBER'l ] 2.GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ITLE (andSubtie) Final environment impact .tatement TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVEREDhe Columbia River a nd ' tr-ibutar*i es -- - - -- ralfim Final

,port,.Yakima-Union Gap ,lood damage reduction,.akia River Basin, Washington. " S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

1. AUTH-OR(..) . CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSSeattle Dist. Library, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box C-3755, Seattle, WA 98124

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12 , E i IX '

1.. - Mard% 98VT .'-NUMBEWR F PAGES

. -. 16914. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassi fiedIS&. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

I1. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstact entered in Block 20. if different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 'Original contains 0e10^1plates; All DTIC reproduet.ions will be in black andwhites

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary nd identify by block number)Yakima River Basin Washington (State)Yakima Environmental Impact StatementsUnion Gap Flood Control

it

There are six basic components of the proposed plan for flood damage reduc-tion; 4 which are levee improvements and 2 control structures. Project con-struction will take approximately 15 months to complete. This report definesthe environmental settings of Yakima-Union Gap area and analyzes the impactsof the proposal project; most of which are identified as short-term impacts.

. .S ...473 1s . .. . .. I V II IIS .O.LT. I'A.S aCUAary CLASS OPICATtOU Of TWIS 110441 Were*

FIRAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES STUDY

INTERIM REPORT

YAKINA-UNION GAP FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION,

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON

Prepared By

U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle

Seattle, WashingtonAcceon~~7Y

1980 --. S GT,..-

S . . ,, . ....d/or

Di t s - pecia l'

THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES STUDYINTERIM REPORT

YAKIMA-UNION GAP FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION,YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON

( ) Revised Draft Environmental Statement (ZIS) (x) Final IS

Responsible Office:

Colonel Leon K. Moraski, District EngineerU.S. Army Engineer District, SeattlePost Office Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124 - (206) 764-3690

1. Name of Action: ( ) Administrative (x) Legislative

2. Description of Action: The proposed project in Yakima County, Wash-ington, involves the improvement of 9 miles of existing right and leftbank levees along the Yakima River, extending from the confluence of theNaches and Yakima Rivers downstream to the Highway 24 Bridge. The pro-ject also involves the construction of new levees and flood controlstructures immediately downstream of the Highway 24 Bridge, including a2.7-mile left bank levee, primarily to protect farmland and residences,and a 1.1-mile right bank levee to protect the Yakima Sewage TreatmentPlant. One-half mile of bank protection for Interstate Highway 82 (1-82)and two control structures for culverts to protect the city of Union Gap,Washington, would also be constructed.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: The proposed project would involve con-struction on about 66 acres of land, altering an area of natural vegeta-tion, pasture, and existing levees. The existing levees would beimproved to provide protection from the 200-year flood event above theWashington State Highway Department Highway 24 Bridge. The proposed newlevees would provide protection from the 200-year flood event below thebridge, and the Highway 1-82 bank protection and the two control struc-tures would provide protection from the 100-year flood event. Property,lives, agricultural land, businesses, and public roads and facilitieswould all be protected during flood events. In addition, should plansfor a Yakima Floodway Park be realized, the levees could also serve a atrail system linking all sections of the park together.

b. Adverse Environmental Impacts: Project construction would haveshort-term impacts on local traffic and noise. Contruction on 66 acresof land would eliminate about 20 acres of important wildlife habitat andalso wildlife; however, after planting of various species of grasses andforbs on the levee slopes and tops, and some planting of native shrubs onland immediately adjacent to the levees, wildlife populations would begin

to recover. Short-term losses of wildlife would adversely impact huntersand those who enjoy observing wildlife. Removal of streamside vegetation

/I

and addition of rock riprap would adversely affect fish populations, and

rocked banks would hinder fisherman access. Improved levees and new

levees would cause flood-plain lands to take on a less natural and more

man-influenced appearance; this would be an adverse aesthetic loss tosome people within the community. Historical and prehistorical resources

which could exist within the project area may be destroyed if not sal-

vaged prior to construction.

4. Alternatives: Do nothing, flood-plain management alone, flood-plain

management with additional upstream storage, flood-plain management withchannel modification, purchase of development rights, and purchase offloodway.

5. a. Comments Received (District Review): In January 1977, the draft

environmental impact statement was sent to appropriate governmentalagencies and interested citizens for their review and comment. Lettersfrom the following agencies and citizens were received:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Park ServiceBureau of Outdoor Recreation (now Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service)Bureau of Reclamation (now Water and Power Resource Service)

Bureau of MinesU.S. Department of Agriculture

Soil Conservation ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce

National Marine Fisheries ServiceAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationWashington State Department of EcologyWashington State Highway Commission (now Washington State

Department of Transportation)Washington State Parks and Recreation CommissionYakima County Clean Air AuthorityAssociated Students University of WashingtonRobert G. Card

b. Comments Requested (Department Review): In December 1978 depart-mental review comments on the revised draft environmental impact state-ment were requested from Yakima County, the State of Washington, andFederal agencies at the Washington, D.C. level. Comments were providedby the following:

Department of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceDepartment of Health, Education, and WelfareDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of the Interior

iiJ

Department of TransportationEnvironmental Protection AgencyState of WashingtonYakima County

6. Draft Statement to CEQ on 22 December 1976.Revised Draft Statement to EPA on 28 December 1978,.Final Statement to EPA on 14 MAY 1%r~

Mi

ThBLE OF COTENTS

PararaphAge

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ 11.01 Location..~o~o9.- ... 11.03 Athority.*. .....J2J I JJ:2 J2J2 :221.03 Project Purpoe ...................................... I

1.05 Project Plans ......................................... 11.07 Left Bank Improvements ................................ 21 .12 Right Bank Improvements .... .... 0.... ................ 31.15 Left Bank Levee Below Moxee Bridge.................... 41.21 The Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Plant

Levee............... ........................... ... 51.25 Interstate 82 (1-82) Bank Protection .................. 61.27 Spring Creek Control Structures ............... 0...... 61.28 Level of Flood Protection............................. 61.29 Borrow Sources ..... o.................... 61.30 Ponding Landward of the Levees ........................ 71.31 Project Operation ... 0 .. *........ ... 71.32 Project Naintenance .............. ..... ..... .. 71.33 The Local Sponsor ...................... .... .... .... 81.34 Project Economice ..... *o... .. .4..0...... .*.... 81.39 Section 404 of Public Law 92-500...................... 91.40 Interrelationship and Compatibility with Existing

or Proposed Corps of Engineers or Other AgencyPro jettso...... 0 6 ........ 9...... .. .. . .. . 00.. ..... 9

TABLE 1: Yakima-Union Gap Levees, Benefit-Cost Analysis 10

2.0 EVIROM NTAL SETTING WITHOUT TH PROJECT ............. 11

2.02 Population and Historic rowth........................ 112.05 Population Projections .............................. 122.07 Population Characteristics............... ............ 122.13 Public Facilities and Services........................ 132.15 Industry and Employment............................... 142.16 Agriculture - General ........................... , ..... 142.18 Agriculture - Prime and Unique Farmland ............... 142.19 Forestry.............................................. 14

2.23 Retail sod ............ ,......... 152.25 erie..............,.......,... 15

2.27 Outdoor Recreation.................................... 162.32 Lend Oinerships.................. ................... 182.35 Land is ........................ 1

2.37 Transportation .... . ............................. . ... 19

iv

TABLE 0F CONTENTS (con.)

Parazrayh Pa

2.44 Agiutrls....... Soils .......... ,.... 21

2.46 Climate ................ ................... 222.47 Tesnperatures....,..... ................. 22

2.52 Air Quality................................. 232.54 Description of Yakima Riverra ag. .. ...... 232.58 Flood and Flood Damage.. *..*~*..*........ 242.62 Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures -Flood

2.onxitng FlodDage Redutio Me.asure.. . - Levees6

2.68 Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures LeeeWate d Protecti....o................. .. ... 28

2.69 Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures-FloFotretnd n Eerge ncy voperato. ...... *.*... 28

2.70 Propsedn Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood

2.72 Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures loee

2.81onro Sitoif rage ......................oo ....... 30

2.83an Cih annels.................... .......... 19

2.85 Endangered or Threatened pees.......... 312.86 Prehistoricol and Historical Resources ......... 31

TABLE 2: Historic Population Growth - 1940-1975 ...... 11TABLE 3: Population Projections - 1970-2020..oooseoe. 12TABLE 4% Project Area Landse. .......... 20TABLE 5: Historical Yakima River Floods.oooooooooooo. 25TABLEK6: Storage Reservoirs .............. 26TABLIE 7: Existing I~ve. ......... ....... 27

3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONI TO LMND-089

3.01 Relationship to Existing Comprehensive Develop-

3.02 Relationship to Existing Flood-Plain Zoning

3.03 Relationship to the Existing State Shoreline

Management Act (SK)...................... 33

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)

Paragraph page

4.0 1E PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ONTHE ENVIRCUMKNT..................................... 34

4.01 Short-Term Construction Impacts...*.................. 344.02 Air Quality Impacts ................ ............. 344.03 Noise Impacts ........... ..................... 34

4.04 Water Quality Impacts ............................... 344.05 Short-Term Vegetation Impacts..................... 354.07 Short-Term Wildlife Impacts........................... 354.08 Short-Term Fish Impacts...... .... .... .. .. ... 6....... 354.09 Borrow Site Impacts ........... *...0 . 0-.... 0 364.10 Local Traffic Impacts .................. .............. . 364.11 Short-Term Economic and Social Impacts ................ 364.12 Employment and the Labor Force ....................... 364.13 Income ........ 0..........0.........0.........0.......... 37

4.14 Local Government Finances ............................. 374.15 Displacement of People, Businesses, and Farms ......... 374.16 Long-Term Economic and Social Impacts ................. 374.17 Property Values for Protected Lands ................... 374.18 Property Taxes Impacts ...... ........ ..... . ........ . 374.19 Social and Economic Well-Being Impacts for Pro-

tected Lands ........ o.............0.................o 37

4.21 Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmlands ................. 384.22 Impacts of Unprotected Lands .......................... 394.23 Impacts of Ponding Landward of the Levees ............. 394.24 The Possibility of Levee Failure ...................... 394.26 Long-Term Esthetic Impacts ............................ 404.29 Long-Term Outdoor Recreation Impacts ........ ** ....... 404.31 Long-Term Land-Use Plans and Land-Use Changes

Ipacts ....... ........... 4

4.35 Long-Term Biological mpacts....oo. ..... 414.36 Long-Term Vegetation Impactsp ts........... ....... 414.42 Long-Term Wildlife Impacts .............. 0..o ...... 424.43 Long-Term Fish Impacts .......... .... 0 ..... 0 434.44 Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species ...........4.45 Long-Term Historical and Prehistorical Resources

Impacts ................ 0..0. .. .. 0-6..... ..... 0...... 44

PHOTOGRAPHlS 6.. ... ......................... 45

5.0 ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICHCANNOT BE AVOIDED .. .......... .................... 48

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)

Paragraph Page

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............. 49

6.01 Do Nothing ....................................... 496.03 Flood-Plain Management Alone ..................... 496.07 Flood-Plain Management with Additional Upstream

Storage ........................................ 506.11 Flood-Plain Management with Channel Modification. 506.14 Purchase of Development Rights ................... 51

6.16 Purchase of Floodway ............................. 51

7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USESOF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE ANDENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .......... 53

8.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OFRESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PRO-POSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED .......... 54

9.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSE ............ 55

9.01 Public and Agency Participation .................. 559.03 Government Agency and Public Response to Draft

Environmental Impact Statement ................. 55..59.19 Comments and Responses on Revised Draft Statement 73

PLATE 1: Basin MapPLATE 2: Project AreaPLATE 3: Flood-Plain Limits (Upstream of Moxee Bridge)PLATE 4: Flood-Plain Limits (Downstream of Moxee Bridge)PLATE 5: Plan and Profiles Above Moxee BridgePLATE 6: Plan and Profiles Below Moxee BridgePLATE 7: Levee Sections Above Moxee Bridge

PLATE 8: Levee Sections Below Moxee Bridge

APPENDIX A: Principal Native Aquatic andTerrestrial Vegetation

APPENDIX B: Wildlife InventoryAPPENDIX C: Importance of This Area to WildlifeAPPENDIX D: Fish InventoryAPPENDIX E: Correspondence with Sources of Cultural

Resources Expertise

APPENDIX F: Letters Received on Draft StatementAPPENDIX G: Letters Received on Revised Draft

Statement

vii

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.01 Location. The proposed project is within Yakima County, Wash-

ington, along approximately 8.5 miles of the Yakima River between the

confluence of the Naches and Yakima Rivers downstream to a physical

feature known as Union Gap. The cities of Yakima and Union Gap are just

west of the proposed project (see plate 2).

1.02 The proposed project is within the Yakima River drainage basin,which has an area of about 6,000 square miles in Yakima, Kittitas, and

Benton Counties of south - central Washington (see plate 1). The Yakima

River rises above Keechelus Lake (elevation 2,475 feet) and flows south-

eastward for 200 miles to its confluence with the Columbia River near

Richland.

1.03 Authority. Current investigations by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers of the Yakima River and its major tributaries began in 1972.

The report is being prepared as an Interim Report to the Columbia River

and Tributaries Study (CR&T) and also in partial response to a 1966

Senate Public Works Comnittee resolution. The authority for this study

permits an investigation of the total Yakima River Basin in the interest

of flood damage reduction and related purposes. However, the scope ofthis particular study and environmental impact statement is limited to

the reach of the Yakima River between Yakima and Union Gap.

1.04 Project Purpose. The project purpose is reduction of flood

damages along the Yakima River from the city of Yakima to Union Gap.

1.05 Project Plans. Several changes have been made in the plan as

presented in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Theseinclude increasing the levee heights downstream of the Highway 24 Bridge

(also known as the Moxee Bridge) to provide 200-year protection; increas-ing the levee freeboard immediately above Moxee and Terrace Heights

Bridges by 1 foot to accommodate swell heads and by an additional foot

above Terrace Heights Bridge to allow for future aggradation; provisionof additional riprap due to the meandering nature of the river; andinclusion of the proposed mitigation measures as good environmentaldesign rather than mitigation.

1.06 There are six basic components of the proposed plan: the

improvement of the existing left (east) bank levee upstream of the MoxeeBridge (see plate 5), the improvement of the existing right (west) bank

levee upstream of the Moxee Bridge (see plate 5), the construction of a

new left bank levee downstream of the bridge (see plate 6), the construc-

tion of a new right bank Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Plant levee

downstream of the bridge (plate 6), bank protection along InterstateHighway 82 (1-82) (plate 6), and two control structures for culverts on

Spring Creek to provide protection for the city of Union Gap (plate 6).

The following paragraphs present details of the six project components.Project construction would probably take 15 months to complete.

1.07 Left Bank Improvement Above Moxee Bridge (see plate 5) consistsof improving the existing east bank levee system which consists of thefollowing sections: the most upstream section which extends from theMoxee County canal about 2,500 feet downstream (built by the U.S. Waterand Power Resource Service (WPRS))p a short section which extends alongthe Burlington Northern Railroad tracks (built by the Corps of Engin-eers), the embankments along both sides of the Roza Wasteway (built bythe WPRS), and the remainder of the levee system which extends from theRoza Wasteway downstream to the Moxee Bridge (built by the Corps ofEngineers in 1948). The proposed improvements call for the raising of2.0 linear miles of levee (represented by the red line on plate 5) andthe addition of rock riprap along 2.0 miles (represented by the jaggedred line). The levee would be raised between 1 and 6 feet, averagingbetween 2 and 3 feet.

1.08 The existing levees have a 1:3 riverward slope (1 vertical footfor every 3 horizontal feet) and a 1:2 landward slope. These slopes willbe preserved on the levee sections to be raised. If an existing leveesection is 5 feet high and it is to be raised 2 feet, the landward exten-sion of the levee would be 10 feet (see diagram below). All levee sec-tions to be raised will be extended on the landward slope so as not toencroach upon the river. A construction easement and cleared path forconstruction vehicles beyond the proposed horizontal extension would notbe necessary because much of the construction work could be accomplishedfrom the top of levee. The existing levee sections already have rockriprap from the levee toe to generally a little more than halfway up theslope on the riverward side (see photos at end of chapter 4). The pro-posed plan calls for additional rock riprap (refer to jagged red line onplate 5) to cover most of the entire riverward slope, except for a fewsections in which the rock would not be placed at the top 3 vertical feetof the levee.

o2

1.09 The present landscaping plan has the following elements. Sixinches of topsoil would cover the levee slopes, and the slopes would beseeded with various species of grass seed and forbs. No trees or shrubswould be planted on the levee slopes. Rock riprap along a section ofSportsman's State Park would be covered with soil; the topsoil would fill

2

rock voids above normal high flows. This soil would then be seeded withgrasses and forbs. No other levee section would receive soil on theriprap. Other landscaping plans would be studied during post-athorization planning. The possibility of planting trees and shrubsadjacent to the levee on permanent or temporary easements would beexplored. Plantings on temporary easements would have to be protectedafter easements are relinquished to guard against future tree remove.This could be accomplished by agreements with land owners. Trees andshrubs could be planted on landward easements, but to protect leveeintegrity only grasses and other small plants could be planted on river-ward easements. In addition to this possibility, the Corps of Engineerswill study the feasibility of "overbuilding" particular levee sections,especially the state park levee. A larger levee would enable ,_rees andshrubs to be planted safely on the levee slopes without compromisinglevee integrity. No matter which landscaping scheme is finally chosen,shrub and tree species would be chosen with the aid of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS) and Washington Department of Game (WDG). In thevicinity of the state park, the Corps of Engineers would also coordinateclosely with the Washington State Parks and Recreations Commission.

1.10 The following amounts of material and clearing would be neededfor the left bank improvement:

Clearing of trees and brush 0.2 ac.Earth borrow material 53,220 c.y.Rock riprap 23,320 tonsExcavation (in river) 1,700 c.y.Backfill (in river) 700 c.y.Excavation (dry) 1,900 c.y.Backfill (dry) 700 c.y.

1.11 Four ungated culverts exist under the levee above the TerraceHeights Bridge. At this time, it is anticipated that flapgates will beinstalled on these culverts.

1.12 Right Bank Improvement (see plate 5) consists of the rehabilita-tion of the existing west bank levee system, also built by the Corps ofEngineers in 1948, which extends from the confluence of the Yakima andNaches Rivers along the Yakima River to the Moxee Bridge. The plan ofimprovement would be very similar to the plan for the left bankimprovement. About 2.8 miles of levee would be raised, and about 4.1miles of levee would receive additional riprap. Levee sections wouldgenerally be raised from 1 to 3 feet, averaging between I and 2 feet.Sections to be riprapped would extend either to the top of the riverwardside of the levee or to 3 feet below the top.

1.13 Landscaping treatment would be similar to the left bank levee;however, no section of riprapped slope would be covered with soil.

3

1.14 The following amounts of material and clearing would be neededfor the west bank improvement:

Clearing of trees and brush 0.2 ac.Earth borrow material 34,400 c.y.Rock riprap 27,820 tonsExcavation (in river) 800 c.y.Backfill (in river) 300 c.y.

1.15 Left Bank Levee Below Moxee Bridge (see plate 6) consists of theconstruction of a now east bank Yakima River levee from the Moxee Bridgeto an area just north of Union Cap, a total of about 2.9 miles (2.0 milesof which would be rocked). The levee would vary in height from about 4feet to a maximum of 13 feet as described in the following paragraph.

1.16 Starting from the north and working south, little constructionwould occur along the 900 feet of Highway 24 embankment. South of theembankment, the first 1,200 feet of levee would be about 9 feet high and48 feet wide at the base. The next 2,000 feet would vary between 6 and13 feet high and 36 and 77 feet wide at the base. The next 3,500 feet oflevee would average between 6 and 9 feet high and 36 and 48 feet wide atthe base. Then the next 2,200 feet of levee would be built on higherground and thus be 4 to 6 feet high and 28 to 36 feet in width. Thefinal 5,400 feet of levee would leave higher ground, continue south witha height of about 6 feet, and then turn east. The levee height wouldgradually taper off to zero as the height of the ground increases. Theentire levee segment parallel to the river between the highway embankmentand the point where the levee alinement turns east, would be armored.Ten-foot-wide construction easements would generally be needed on bothsides of the levee. Where brush and trees exist on these easementstrips, the strips would be cleared to facilitate the movement ofconstruction vehicles.

1.17 The following diagrams depict levee widths for a 12-foot- and6-foot-high levee. A levee height of 10 feet or less has a 1:2 slope onthe landward side; a height over 10 feet requires a 1:3 slope. In bothcases a riverside slope of 1:2 is used. For detailed information onlevee cross sections, refer to plates 7 and 8. The various levee crosssections are identified by Roman numerals; these Roman numerals alsoappear on plates 5 and 6.

~01 24 14 o-3~

24'

, ~~To~ci otr5'c~c

1.18 Landscaping treatment would be similar to the upstream leveetreatment, and some rock riprap would be covered with soil to fill rockvoids.

1.19 The following amounts of material and clearing would be neededfor the left bank levee below ?oxee Bridge:

Clearing of brush and trees 3 ac.Earth borrow material 127,400 c.y.Rock riprap 69,343 tonsExcavation (dry) 74,800 c.y.Backfill (dry) 48,100 c.y.

1.20 Three drainage control structures would be required for thislevee: two culverts with flapgates and one pressure pipe. The gatedculverts (see plate 6) would be of 54-inch and 36-inch diameter. In aflood event pressure would close the gates, possibly causing some pondingon the landward side of the levee. About 1,500 feet of 24-inch pipewould be placed in an existing drainage ditch located at the upper tie-inof the levee to avoid backwater ponding during major flood events. About10,850 feet of this levee would be riprapped (see plate 6).

1.21 The Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Plant Levee (see plate 6)consists of the construction of a right bank Yakima River levee from theMoxee Bridge south along the Yakima Sewage Treatment Plant spray irriga-tion field, a total of about 1.2 miles (.9 miles of which would berocked). The levee would vary in height from 5 to 7 feet.

1.22 Landscaping treatment would consist of 6 inches of topsoil onthe levee slopes and seeding with various species of grass seed andforbs. The possibility of planting trees and shrubs adjacent to thelevee would be explored during post-authorization planning.

1.23 The following amounts of material and clearing would be neededfor the Yakima Sewage Treatment Plant levee:

Clearing of trees and brush 0.5 ac.Earth borrow material 40,800 c.y.Rock riprap 33,324 tonsExcavation (dry) 17,800 c.y.Backfill (dry) 10,500 c.y.

1.24 The only drainage control structure required for this leveewould consist of a 15-inch pressure pipe which would pass the outflowfrom the pond at the south end of the spray irrigation field. The pipewould function in the manner described in section 1.20. The existingberm around the pool would be raised as required to provide enough headto assure flow during the 200-year event.

5o

I-7

1.25 Interstate 82 (1-82) Bank Protection (see plate 6) consists ofthe improvement of bank protection along 0.5 miles of 1-82 near UnionGap. No levees are proposed in this area, only the addition of rockriprap. Rock would be placed from the top of the embankment.

1.26 The following amounts of material and clearing would be neededfor the highway protection:

Rock riprap 16,400 tonsExcavation (dry) 14,100 c.y.Backfill (dry) 9,000 c.y.Excavation (in river) 19,000 c.y.Backfill (in river) 0 c.y.

1.27 Spring Creek Control Structures (see plate 6) consist of theaddition of drainage control structures only to protect the town of UnionCap. Two culverts on Spring Creek would be gated. The north, orupstream culvert, would require a slide gate, since the normal directionof flow in the stream is from the river to the landward side of the 1-82embankment. Two flapgates would be installed on the downstream culvertswhere normal flow is toward the river. During a flooding situation, theslide gate would be closed as required to prevent flooding along SpringCreek. Wide Hollow Creek would not be gated, since a relatively smallarea is inundated and large creek flows would negate most benefits fromthe gate.

1.28 Level of Flood Protection. Improving the existing leveesupstream of the Moxee Bridge and building new levees downstream of thebridge would provide protection from the 200-year flood, a flood whichhas a 0.5 percent chance of occurring or being exceeded on any givenyear. For the project reach of the Yakima River, a 200-year flood hasbeen computed to be 70,000 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.). Constructionof the 1-82 bank protection and the Spring Creek control structuresdownstream of the Moxee Bridge would provide protection from the 100-yearflood (55,000 c.f.s), a flood which has a 1.0 percent chance of occurringor being exceeded on any given year. This lower level of protection isrequired because any greater level of protection would require a portionof the interstate highway to be raised in elevation at a very high cost.Plate 3 depicts the 200-year flood-plain limits above the Moxee Bridgeand plate 4 depicts flood-plain limits below the bridge. The 200-yearand 100-year floods were chosen because these levels of flood protectionwould provide protection to the highest level that is economicallyfeasible.

1.29 Borrow Sources. Earth material would probably be taken fromeither the existing city-owned borrow site near Union Gap or from exist-ing comercial borrow sources within the general project area. A totalof 255,820 cubic yards (c.y.) of earth material would be needed for allfive project components. The rock source would probably be either theHorseshoe Bend Quarry about 25 miles from Yakima, or the Yakima Firing

6

" -- | ' 'I-

.. ..

7

.

Range Quarry about 15 miles northeast of Yakima. A total of 170,207 tonsof rock would be needed for all five project components.

1.30 Ponding Landward of the Levees. Local drainage which causesponding in the project area during a flood event has historically notbeen a significant problem due to the semipervious quality of the alluv-ial soils along the Yakima River, the comparatively light rainfall andsnowmelt which occurs during winter storms, and the lack of heavy thun-derstorms in the local valley area. Proposed project components would bedesigned with flapgates or slide gates for culverts, and pressure pipes,to alleviate possible damaging ponding behind the levees (see paragraphs1.11, 1.20, 1.24, and 1.27). With the exception of only one area, theproposed project should not increase the depth of any ponding whichpresently occurs in the project area during high streamflows. The oneexception is at the southernmost end of the proposed left bank leveebelow the Moxee Bridge at the angle point where the levee turns east.During a severe storm and flood on the mainstem, water could pond overabout 50 acres of land in this area, reaching a maximum depth of 5 feetalong the levee. Depths could slightly exceed preproject conditions;however, velocities would be near zero as compared to high velocity underpreproject conditions. The land is presently in pasture. A real estateeasement would be required for this ponding area.

1.31 Project Operation. The local sponsor would be responsible forall project operation. Whenever high-water conditions threaten, flap-gates would be closely observed until it has been ascertained that theyare securely closed. Manually operated gates and valves would be closedas necessary to prevent inflow of floodwater. All drainage structures inlevees would be inspected frequently during floods to ascertain whetherseepage is taking place along the lines of their contact with the embank-ment. Immediate steps would be taken to correct any adverse condition.In addition, local interests are responsible for any sandbagging or bermbuilding which is part of the plan. Plate 5 identifies such an emergencyprotection area on the right bank near the Boise Cascade Mill, and plate6 identifies such an area on the right bank near Union Gap.

1.32 Project Maintenance. All project maintenance would be theresponsibility of the local sponsor. Because the levees are designed tohandle velocities associated with design floods, relatively little main-tenance outside of the current program for debris removal and vegetationcontrol would be necessary. Maintenance measures would include (but notbe limited to) the following: The routine removal of trees and bushes onthe levee proper, the removal of burrowing animals which are threateningthe integrity of the levee, and the removal of encroachments on the leveewhich threaten the levee or which would hamper the movement of men andmachinery during a flood emergency. Any vegetation planted adjacent tothe levee for wildlife mitigation would, of course, not be subject toremoval. Should the levee be damaged, repairs would be made as soon aspossible to prevent enlargement of damaged areas. On lands between thelevees (the floodway), no maintenance would be required downstream of the

7

I, pin g

Moxee Bridge. As called for in the Operations and Maintenance Manual forthe existing Corps of Engineers' levee project, the local sponsor wouldstill be required to remove trees and shrubs from a portion of the flood-way upstream of the Moxee Bridge in order to pass the design flood. Theexisting maintenance manual will be reviewed to determine if there shouldbe any change in the areas of vegetation removal.

1.33 The Local Sponsor would be required to share project construc-tion costs; provide necessary lands, rights-of-way, and easements; andassume all project maintenance. The local sponsor for the proposedupstream levee improvements and the new left bank levee downstream of thebridge would be Yakima County. The local sponsors for the sewage treat-ment plant levee and the Spring Creek control structures would be thecity of Yakima and the Washington State Department of Transportation,respectively.

1.34 Project Economics. Economic evaluation of the recommended planwas based on a comparison of costs and benefits. Economic justificationof the proposed improvements was determined by comparing the equivalentaverage annual charges with an estimate of the equivalent average annualbenefits over the 100-year period of analysis. Economic benefits werebased on flood damage reduction, project employment, elimination of floodproofing costs, and intensification benefits that would result from therecommended plan.

1.35 Benefits and costs are based on 1976 prices. An interest rateof 6-3/8 percent, applicable to water resource projects, was used in thisreport. For the purpose of economic analysis, project year one (thefirst year of project operation) is assumed to be 1982.

1.36 Existing flood damage prevention benefits were derived employingstandard Corps of Engineers' methods; these included detailed fieldassessment of damage potential based on computer-simulated water-surfaceprofiles associated with given floods. Benefits attributable to reduc-tion of future flood damages and other benefits were evaluated in confor-mance with ER 1105-2-351 (Evaluation of Beneficial Contributions toNational Economic Development for Flood-Plain Management Plans, 13 June1975). Flood damage prevention benefits were based on an analysis ofdamages under with and without project conditions. For more detailedinformation concerning the economic analysis, refer to appendix F of thefeasibility report for the Corps of Engineers' Yakima-Union Gap FloodDamage Reduction Study Interim Report of the Columbia River and Tribu-taries Study.

1.37 Table 1 presents the Federal and non-Federal construction costsfor both components of the recommended plan, along with a benefit/cost

8

comparison for each component. This analysis assumes there would bebenefits from the proposed project throughout the 100-year economic life(1982-2082) and that there would be area redevelopment benefits as wellas inundation reduction benefits. Area redevelopment benefits are basedon the premise that some locally unemployed people would be employedduring project construction, and since Yakima County qualifies as an areaof persistent unemployment, reduction of local unemployment would con-stitute a benefit to the local and national economies.

1.38 On 6 June 1978 President Carter proposed several changes in costsharing for water resources projects to allow states to participate moreactively in project implementation decisions and to equalize cost sharingbetween structural and nonstructural flood control projects. Thesechanges include a cash contribution from benefiting states of five per-cent of construction (first) costs associated with nonvendible outputsand 10 percent of costs associated with vendible outputs. Application ofthis policy to the Yakima-Union Gap project would require the State ofWashington to contribute an estimated $258,400 in cash (five percent ofthe $5,168,000 total estimated project first cost based on 1976 pricelevel). The President also proposed that the present cost-sharingrequirements for flood control projects be modified to require a cash orin-kind contribution equal to 20 percent of the project first costs

associated with flood control benefits. Application of this policy tothe Yakima-Union Gap project would require that non-Federal interestsmake, in addition to the state contribution, a cash or in-kind contribu-tion of an estimated $1,033,600 (20 percent of $5,168,000). The combinednon-Federal share would be 25 percent of project first cost, and non-Federal costs shown in table 1 would increase from $106,000 to $1,292,000.The Chief of Engineers has recommended authorization of the Yakima-UnionGap project in accordance with the President's proposed cost-sharingpolicy.

1.39 Section 404 of Public Law 92-500. Federal regulations requirean evaluation of the effects of activities involving the discharge ofdredged or fill materials on aquatic ecosystems in compliance with U.S.Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Studies and evaluations todate have been conceptual for this study; a full Section 404 Evaluationwill be accomplished during post-authorization planning when projectdetails have been firmed up.

1.40 Interrelationship and Compatibility with Existing or ProposedCorps of Engineers or Other Agency Projects. The proposed project wouldimprove and expand an existing Corps of Engineers flood control project.The WPRS is working with FWS personnel in evaluating problems and solu-tions to fisheries resources involving the Roza Wasteway. Any solutionto this fisheries problem could be affected by the proposed left bankimprovement north of the Moxee Bridge. The Washington State Parks andRecreation Cmission (PRC) has expressed concern that the left bankimprovement through the Yakima Sportsman Park may affect visitor enjoy-ment of the park. The Washington State Department of Transporation isplanning to improve 1-82 by construction of a connection to SR-97 in thevicinity of Union Gap. This proposed improvement will fall within the

limits of the subject proposal. The Corps of Engineers would workclosely with the UPRS and PRC and Dept. of Transportation during post-authorization planning.

9

TAILE IYakiaUnlioa Cap Levees

lene fit-Cost Analysis

(1976 Prices, 6-3/8 percent, 100-year Life)

Lef Bnk Right Bank All Proects

First Costs:Federal Costs $2,906,000 $2,156,000 $5,062,000

Io-FdealCots85,000 21,000 106,000Non-Federal Costs -- ZZ

Total (rounded) $2,991,000 2 000 I5,168,000

Average Annual Costs?

Interest andAmortizatiou $191,000 $139,100 $330,100

Operation andMaintenance 3,500 3 6

Subtotal $194,500 $142,100 $336,600

unmitigated Fish andWildlife Costs $2,1000 21 $t200

Total , $144,200 $340,800

Average Annual Benefits:

Existing Conditions $202,100 $244,100 $446,200

Future Conditions 262,100 278,200 540,300

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio!

Existing Conditions 1.03 1.7 1.3

Future Conditions 1.3 1.9 1.6

10

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT

2.01 Many of the sections below begin with a description of a generalgeographic area and conclude with a description of the smaller projectArea. The general area used in population, social, and economic sectionsis Yakima County, Washington. Special emphasis has been placed on theYakima County cities of Yakima and Union Gap because these cities areadjacent to the project site. The general area used in all other sec-tions is the Yakima drainage basin, which is composed of parts of Yakima,Kittitas, Benton, and a very small part of Klickitat County, Washington(see plate 1). In all cases, the project area is that area which wouldbe directly affected by the proposed project, the 200-year flood plainbetween Selah Gap and Union Gap (see plates 3 and 4). Since the proposed1-82 bank protection would offer only 100-year flood protection, thatmall portion of the project area would only be the 100-year flood plain.

Population and Historic Growth

2.02 General Area. Yakima is the second largest county in Washingtonand in 1976 ranked sixth in population with 153,300 persons. The popula-tion increased steadily from 1940 to 1960 and then only slightly between1960 and 1970. Between 1970 and 1976 population increased 5.6 percent.The county's average annual growth rate between 1940 and 1976 was 1.22percent compared to 2.02 percent for the state during the same period.The cities of Yakima and Union Gap accounted for 34 percent of the totalcounty population in 1976 and had a combined average annual growth rateof 1.70 percent between 1940 and 1976.

2.03 Table 2 presents historic population growth for Washington,Yakima County, and the cities of Yakima and Union Gap.

TABLE 2Historic Population Growth

1940-1975

1940 1950 1960 1970 1976

Washington 1,736,200 2,379,000 2,853,200 3,413,200 3,571,600Yakima County 99,000 135,700 145,100 145,200 153,300Yakima 27,200 38,500 43,300 45,600 49,100Union Gap 1,000 1,800 2,100 2,000 2,600

2.04 Project Area. The 1976 Corps of Engineers' estimate of theproject area population is 2,380 persons. Number of residential units is591 above the Moxee Bridge and 210 below the Moxee Bridge.

11

Population Projections.

2.05 General Area. Population projections were calculated for YakimaCounty and the cities of Yakima and Union Gap. The projected averageannual growth rate of 1.2 percent was based on Battelle Northwest projec-tions for Yakima County.l/ This growth rate conform closely to histori-cal Yakima County population growth. The resulting population projec-tions are provided in table 3.

TABLE 3

Population Projections1976-2020

Average AnnualGrowth Rate 1.2% 1976 1990 2000 2020

Yakima County 153,300 181,200 204,100 259,100Yakima 49,100 58,000 65,400 83,000Union Gap 2,600 3,100 3,500 4,400

2.06 Project Area. No changes were expected in the agriculturalzoning classifications of the flood plain, with or without the project.Minimum lot size restrictions would prevent most alternative uses of theproject area. Population growth was, therefore, assumed to be the samewith or without the project, 1.2 percent as shown in table 3.

Population Characteristics

2.07 General Area. The median age of Yakima County residents in 1970was 28.7 years, exceeding the state average by 1.2 years. The populationin 1976 was 82.6 percent White, 10.9 percent Spanish surnamed, 1.1 per-cent Black, 4.0 percent American Indian, and 1.3 percent Oriental andother racial groups. The median years of education of county residents25 years old and over in 1970 was 12.0 compared to 12.4 in the state.

2.08 Yakima County per capita income in 1974 was $5,189; WashingtonState per capita income was $5,713. Yakima County has not kept pace withthe growth of income in the state since 1950. The county's contributionto total state personal income has declined from 4.4 percent in 1950 to4.0 percent in 1974.

2.09 The county has had a persistently high rate of unemployment.State Employment Security figures for 1975 indicate that county unemploy-ment averaged 10.4 percent compared to 9.5 percent for the

I/Evaluation of Yakima County's Growth Prospects to 1980, EconomicAnalysis Section, Battelle Northwest, Richland, Washington, 1969.

12

7-tL _.. -......- ~ " • -"

state and 8.5 percent for the United States as a whole. Due to theseasonal nature of agricultural and related employment in the county,the unemployment rate varies considerably throughout the year.

2.10 The city of Yakima, incorporated in 1886, is the county seat ofYakima County. In 1970, the city population was 95.8 percent White andSpanish surnamed, 2.4 percent Black, 0.9 percent American Indian, and 0.9percent Oriental and other racial groups. Between 1960 and 1970 the cityof Yakima experienced a net migration of plus 5.3 percent. This isaccounted for in part by persons leaving rural areas to seek better-paying jobs and a wider choice of career opportunities in the city ofYakima. The median age of city residents in 1970 was 31.6, exceeding thecounty by 2.9 years. The 1970 median years of education for persons 25years and older in Yakima was 12.2, only slightly exceeding countyaverages.

2.11 Incorporated in 1883, the town of Union Gap is a small communityadjacent to Yakima. Union Gap had a 1976 population of 2,600. Popula-tion characteristics closely resemble county characteristics.

2.12 Project Area. The flood-plain residents appear to be morerepresentative of the Yakima County and Union Gap population charac-teristics than the city of Yakima population characteristics.

Public Facilities and Services

2.13 General Area. The county and city of Yakima have a normalcomplement of community services, such as hospitals, schools, churches,law enforcement, fire, and welfare service. Numerous public organiza-tions are also service oriented. The seat of county government is thecity of Yakima, which also serves as the headquarters for various stateand Federal agencies with business in the county. The city of Yakimaobtains domestic water supplies from the Naches River and four wells.Secondary sewage treatment is provided by the city of Yakima. CascadeNatural Gas Corporation provides natural gas service and Pacific Powerand Light provides electricity. Telephone service is provided by PacificNorthwest Bell.

2.14 Project Area. Public facilities on the right bank which wouldbe protected by project components include the Yakima Regional WasteTreatment Plant and the Union Gap Sewage Treatment Plant, both downstreamof the Moxee Bridge. The Yakima plant treats 12 to 18 million gallonsper day (m.g.d.) of municipal wastes throughout the year, and 2 to 3m.g.d. of effluent from vegetable and fruit processing plants during themonths of August and September. After processing, the vegetable andfruit effluent is sprayed over about 120 acres of hayfields adjacent tothe treatment facilities in the flood plain. Municipal wastes are notsprayed over the pastures. The Yakima plant is expected to become thetreatment plant for the Yakima region. The Union Gap plant in a muchsmaller facility and is expected to be phased out of operation in the

13

- -n--u -. .....- -

near future. The FAA VORTAC, an air guidance system for planes cominginto Yakima, would be protected by the proposed left bank levee down-stream of the Moxee Bridge.

Industry and Employment

2.15 General and Project Area. The economic base of Yakima Countyand the city of Yakima is comprised of four major industries:(1) agriculture and forestry, (2) manufacturing, (3) wholesale/retailtrade, and (4) services.

Agriculture - General

2.16 General Area. The economic base of Yakima County is founded ona highly developed and diversified agricultural sector. Most notably,the area is recognized for its production of fruits (ranking firstnationally in apple production), vegetables, field crops (ranking firstnationally in hop and mint production), livestock and livestock products,and forest products.

2.17 Project Area. Most of the agricultural land within the projectarea flood plain is used for alfalfa hay and native pasture. A smallamount of vegetables and oats are also grown. About 425 acres of agri-cultural land exist upstream of the Moxee Bridge and about 1,958 acresdownstream of the bridge (which includes 108 acres of the Yakima sprayirrigation field used as pasture).

Agriculture - Prime and Unique Farmland

2.18 Project Area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), SoilConservation Service, has stated that there are no USDA designated uniquefarmlands near the project area. However, the following prime lands areclose to the proposed levee alinement: Esquatzel silt loam, 0 to 2percent slope; Toppenish silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slope; Wenas siltloam, 0 to 2 percent slope; and Yakima silt, 0 to 2 percent slope.

Forestry

2.19 General Area. Approximately 42 percent of the county, or1,147,000 acres, was classified as forest land in 1968. In 1972, YakimaCounty was the largest timber-producing county in eastern Washington andthe 12th leading timber-producing county in the state. Most of theharvest comes from the ponderosa pine and Douglas fir species.

2.20 Project Area. There is no commercial forest land or U.S. ForestService (UFS) land within the project area.

14

Ir

Manufacturing

2.21 General Area. Employment in manufacturing accounted for 13

percent of all employment in the county and 12 percent in the city in

1970 (source: U.S. Census). Manufacturing in the county and city of

Yakima is dominated by a prominent and highly diversified food processing

group, an established lumber industry, printing and publishing, and an

emerging textile and apparel industry. 1./ Other manufacturing industries

produce commodities used by the agricultural sector, such as irrigation

equipment, pesticides, and farm machinery. There are some foundaries,

and specialty manufacturers produce machine tools, electrical equipment,

sporting goods, and aircraft parts.

2.22 Project Area. Within the project area there are such manufac-

turing businesses as a food processor, a lumber mill, a concrete and

asphalt plant, a gravel extraction operation, a honey processing plant,

and a company which manufactures camping trailers.

Retail Trade

2.23 General Area. Employment in wholesale and retail trade was 29

percent of city of Yakima total employment and 23 percent of Yakima

County total employment in 1970. The importance of Yakima as a regional

comiercial center was demonstrated by the significant increases in retail

sales between 1967 and 1972. Retail sales increased 52 percent to reach

$213.3 million in 1972 in the city, reflecting an average annual growth

rate of 4.0 percent in real terms (i.e., after conversion to constant

dollars). In Yakima County, retail sales increased 36 percent to reach

$325.8 million in 1972, an average annual real increase of 1.6 percent.

2.24 Project Area. The following retail businesses are within the

project area flood plain: lumber sales, machinery sales, door sales,

farm equipment sales.

Services

2.25 General Area. The service industry in 1975 was the largest

employer of both city and county residents. The service industry

includes automobile and miscellaneous repairs, personal and business

services, entertainment, and health and education. Sales of selected

services in Yakima County amounted to $41.5 million in 1972, a 54 percent

increase over 1967 receipts or an average annual real increase of 4.3

percent. The city experienced a 59 percent increase over 1967, or an

average annual real increase of 4.9 percent, reaching a total of $29.4million in 1972.

1/Yakima County Overall Economic Development Program (Draft), August

1974.

15

2.26 Project Area. A widely diversified service industry existswithin the project area flood plain. The service industry includes suchbusinesses and facilities as auto repair, metal can recycling center,

radio and television stations, skating rink, raceway, cemetery, funeralchapel, dog training school, freight hauling company, moving and storagecompany, and motels.

Outdoor Recreation

2.27 General Area. The outdoor recreation industry is also importantto the basin. There are four state parks within the basin, the closestto the city of Yakima being Indian Rock Paintings Park, 5 miles west of

Yakima, and Sportsman's State Park, one-half mile north of the MoxeeBridge. The only Yakima County park is Eschback Park, 5 miles west ofYakima. There are a total of 23 city of Yakima parks within 142developed acres, including 5 public swimming pools. Other designatedrecreation areas include the Snoqualmie National Forest in the north-western corner of the basin, over 100 miles of the Pacific Crest NationalScenic Trail along the western boundary of the basin, nearly 25,000 acresof the Goat Rocks Wilderness area, approximately 25 miles of the scenicYakima Canyon from just south of Ellensburg to just north of Selah, andseveral scenic reservoirs that are used for recreation.

2.28 The basin provides important hunting and fishing resources forin-basin and out-of-basin residents. Anadromous and resident game fishfound within the basin include chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, rain-bow, cutthroat, brook and brown trout, Dolly Varden, kokanee, mountainwhitefish, small mouth bass, and crappie. Big game mammals include deer,

elk, black bear, mountain lion, and mountain goat. Upland game speciesinclude ring-necked pheasant, Hungarian partridge, chukar, bobwhite,valley quail, ptarmigan, several species of grouse, Wilscn's snipe,band-tailed pigeon, mourning dove, and cottontail. The cimmonly trapped

fur animals include beaver, muskrat, and mink. The basin is also import-ant to waterfowl, and the principal species which are harvested includemallard, gadwall, American widgeon, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal,cinnamon teal, shoveler, pintail, redhead, canvasback, scoup, goldeneye,bufflehead, ruddy duck, coot, snow goose, white-fronted goose, and Canadagoose.

2.29 Three areas are particularly important to hunters, fishermen,

and fish and wildlife resources: The 200,000-acre L. T. Murray, Wenas,and Oak Creek Wildlife Recreation Area (WRA); the 1,650-acre SunnysideWRA; and the 1,760-acre Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge. The south-ernmost portion of the L. T. Murray complex is about 8 miles north ofYakima, the Sunnyside WRA is about 25 miles southeast of Yakima, and theToppenish National Wildlife Refuge is about 16 miles south of Union Gap.Another area, the Moxee Game Reserve, is also important to hunters. Itis located in the southeastern part of the project area. Althoughsmaller than the three previously mentioned areas, the Washington StateDepartment of Game states that it has duck populations which contribute

16

r

about 12,000 waterfowl to the Yakima County total harvest of between60,000 to 100,000 waterfowl yearly. The approximately 12,000 waterfowlfrom the Moxee Reserve result in about 10,000 man/days of hunting inYakima County with an estimated value of $261,000 based on direct spend-ing. In addition to these areas, the State Department of Game maintainsfish hatcheries and many public access areas for stream fishing along theNaches and Yakima Rivers.

2.30 Project Area. Designated outdoor recreation areas within theflood plain include the Yakima City Arboretum (identified on plate 5)which would be protected by the proposed right bank improvement. Theproposed left bank improvement would protect a private campground justnorth of the Moxee Bridge, a WDG fishing access spot on the west bank onFreeway Lake, and the Sportsman's State Park (also identified on plate5). The 200-acre Sportsman's Park, most of which is undeveloped, hastables and stoves, restrooms, 28 tent campsit's, 36 trailer hookups, andhot showers. The major attractions are camping, picnicking, and fishing.

2.31 The following forms of recreation are known to occur on or closeto the Yakima River between Selah and Union Gap. Estimates of man-daysof hunting and fishing and nonconsumptive wildlife usage were made by theWDG and FWS.

(1) Private duck clubs harvest waterfowl from some of the islands andlands which are presently inaccessible to the general public. Annualusage is about 550 hunter-days for duck hunting along the project reachof the Yakima River.

(2) Fishing for steelhead, whitefish, bass, bluegills, and othernongame fish occurs along the river. Annual usage is about 3,000 angler-days for resident and anadromous fish.

(3) Deer hunting occurs in the riparian woodland area south of theMoxee Bridge. Annual usage is about 20 hunter-days.

(4) Upland game hunting for rabbits, pheasant, quail, dove, andgrouse occurs. Annual usage is about 365 hunter-days.

(5) Trapping for commercially important furbearers such as muskrat,beaver, nutria, mink, raccoon, coyote, bobcat, river otter, and skunkoccasionally occurs along this reach of the river.

(6) Bird watching and nature observation. Annual usage is about2,100 man-days for this nonconsumptive pursuit.

(7) Mushroom hunting.

(8) Swiming in the river and in a few warm-water pools away from themain river channel.

17

(9) Some boating and canoeing occurs, but there are no nearby boatlaunch facilities. This reach of the river is very treacherous forboaters and swimuers during high-water conditions.

(10) A few private landowners have equestrian trails near the river,especially in the vicinity of the Moxee Bridge.

Although the area has good recreational potential, recreation use islow because the lands are generally inaccessible to the public.

Land Ownership

2.32 General Area. The Yakima River Basin contains 3.9 millionacres, with the largest landowner being the Federal Government, owningnearly 2 million acres or 52 percent of the land area. Private ownershipamounts to over 1.5 million acres or 40 percent of the total land area.State, county, and municipal ownership make up about 8 percent.

2.33 Project Area. The total project area above the Moxee Bridgecomprises 1,755 acres. Of this total, 235 acres (or 13 percent) is inroads and other public facilities; the other 87 percent is in privateownership. The project area below the bridge comprises 2,458 acres. Ofthis total, 193 acres (8 percent) is in roads and other public facili-ties; the other 92 percent is in private ownership.

2.34 Most landowners within the project area own less than 1 acre ofland. A total of about 248 landowners would be protected by the leftbank levee improvement above the Moxee Bridge, about 140 owning less than1 acre; about 298 landowners would be protected by the right bank leveeimprovement above the bridge, about 222 owning less than 1 acre; 125landowners would be protected by the proposed left bank levee below thebridge, 25 owning less than 1 acre and 54 owning between I and 4 acres;one public facility would be protected by the Yakima Sewage TreatmentPlant Levee; one public facility would be protected by the 1-82 bankprotection; and 27 owners would be protected by the control structures atSpring Creek, 15 owning less than 1 acre. Most parcels of unprotectedland in between the proposed left and right bank levees are also small.

Land Use

2.35 General Area. Within the Yakima Drainage Basin the major landuses are commercial forest land in the east, and cropland and rangelandin the west. Forest land covers 1.5 million acres of the basin, amount-ing to almost 40 percent of the basin land area. This cover forms agreat crescent along the mountainous western and southern borders of thebasin. Rangeland also occupies about 1.5 million acres or about 40percent of the basin land area. Rangeland is concentrated in the easternpart of Kittitas and Yakima Counties. It is interspersed with signifi-cant areas of intensive agriculture along the Yakima River and tributarystreams. Cropland occupies about 960,000 acres or less than 20 percent

18

of the basin land area. Approximately 86 percent of the cropland isunder irrigation. Although hay, pasture, and grain crops cover thegreatest acreage, they are mainly used in the cropping sequence to bal-ance the agricultural enterprise and maintain optimum soil conditions.The major value crops are fruit orchards (mostly apples) occupying about21 percent of the cropland and row crops (mostly sugar beets and pota-toes) along with specialty crops (such as mint, hops, asparagus, andnursery crops) on about 25 percent of the cropland area.

2.36 Project Area. Table 4 on the following page presents a detailed

breakdown of the project area land uses.

Transportation

2.37 General Area. The most important highways in the three-countyarea are: Interstate 90 (1-90), which runs through Kittitas County andserves as the main east-west route through Washington; Interstate 82,which connects Union Gap, Yakima, and Selah with 1-90; U.S. Route 97through Yakima and Kittitas Counties, which serves as the main north-south route through central Washington; and U.S. Route 12 through Bentonand Yakima Counties, which connects Kennewick and Richland with 1-82 andextends westward into southwestern Washington. Railroads (includingdaily Amtrak stops in Yakima) and scheduled commercial air service inYakima and Richland provide contact with other towns throughout thePacific Northwest. There is no commercial navigation on the Yakima Riveror its tributaries. Yakima and Union Gap are served by major truckinglines, Greyhound bus lines, and a mass transit system.

2.38 Project Area. 1-82 and State Route 24 are the most importanthighways through the project area. The 1-82 bank protection would pro- Itect about 2,900 feet of interstate highway from erosion damage on the

right bank, and the levees on the left bank would protect State Highway24 and several miles of county and private roads.

Geologic Setting

2.39 General and Project Area. The Yakima River Basin geology isrelatively complex. The eastern portion of the basin consists of asequence of basalt lava flows which have been deformed into a series ofanticlinal ridges and synclinal valleys which trend northwest-southeastand east-west. 1/ The western portion of the basin is comprised of arugged mountainous topography underlain by a variety of rocks much olderthan the basalt. The valleys in the eastern portion are filled with asmuch as 2,000 feet of post-basalt sediments from the eroded mountainousregion.

2.40 The Yakima and Union Gap area lies in -x east-west trendingstructural and topographic basin bounded on the north and south by basalt

1/An anticlinal ridge is rocks folded into a hill, and a synclinalvalley is rocks folded into a trough.

19

__ _ __ _

. , 9.. : . .

TABLE 4PROJECT AREA LAND USES

Area Above Moxee Bridge (200-year flood plain) l/

Right BankLand Use Flood Plain Left Bank 2/

Residential 130 ac. 115 ac.Public Facilities and Roads 205 30Commercial/industrial 150 105Railroads 15 30Agriculture 80 345Vacant Land 280 270Total 6 895

(all 860 ac. (795 ac.protected) protected)

Area Below Moxee Bridge (200-year flood plain and 100-year flood plainnear 1-82) l/

Land UnprotectedProtected Right Bank Landby Yakima Land Protected LeftSewage Between Treat- by 1-82 & BankTreatment anent Plant Union Gap FloodPlant Levee and 1-82 Control Plain

Land Use Levee Bank Protection Structures Land 3/

Residential 15 ac. 100 ac.

Public Facilitiesand Roads 25 30

Comuercial/Indu s trial 15 30Agriculture 70 2,140Vacant Land 90 ac. 15

Total 108 ac. 90 ac. 140 ac. 2,300 ac.(1,680 ac.protec tedby proposedlevee)

1/In addition to these acreage figures above and below the MoxeeBridge, There are also several hundred acres of meandering river,islands, and gravel bars in between the right and left banks which areimportant as recreational lands and wildlife habitat.

2/Left bank flood plain above the Moxee Bridge actually extends from apoint about one-half mile above the Moxee Bridge at river mile (R.M.)112.3 upstream to R.M. 114.9.

3/Left bank flood plain below the Moxee Bridge actually extends fromR.R. 112.3 downstream to R.M. 109.2.

20

anticlinal ridges. The Yakima River has cut steep-walled canyons throughthe ridges at Selah Gap and Union Gap. The valley is roughly rectangularwith an east-vest length of about 30 miles and a north-south width ofabout 9 miles. The central portion is underlain by 1,200 feet of post-basalt, river-carried lake and wind-blown deposits consisting of poorlyindurated to cemented sandstone and siltstone, conglomerate, and uncemen-ted sands, silts, clays, and gravels. I/

2.41 The Yakima and Union Gap area consists of bottomlands and low-land terraces. Windblown sands and silts mantle much of the surface.The Yakima River flood plain consists of silt and fine sand underlain byalluvial gravels and conglomerate. The Moxee Valley portion of the floodplain to the southeast consists of alluvial deposits underlain by imper-meable glacio-lacustrine silt and sand. 2/

Agricultural Soils

2.42 General Area. Almost one-fourth of the Yakima River DrainageBasin is composed of bottomlands and low alluvial terraces with soilsthat range from gravelly, sandy, and shallow to very deep and silty.Distributed throughout this area are small alkali spots, caliche hardpanlenses, and wet areas. On the north and east parts of the basin another23 percent consists of rocky, droughty soils formed in glacial materialson terraces and foothills. About 10 percent is on plateaus and canyonson the south side with soils formed in shallow to deep beds of wind-deposited loess over basalt bedrock. The remaining 40-plus percentconsists of the high mountainous land on the west side of the basin.Basin soils have developed under scant rainfall and have a high contentof fertile mineral elements.

2.43 Project Area. Soils within the project area are moderately deepto very deep with loamy subsoils on a nearly level flood plain. Soilsnear the main river channels are composed of gravel outwash and notsuitable for agriculture, but they are valuable as a source of gravel.

Minerals

2.44 General Area. The most important mineral mined in the basin hasbeen coal from deposits in the Roslyn field located north of the town ofCle glum, Kittitas County. Other mineral deposits of note have been goldand silver deposits in the Upper Swauk Creek Basin and lateritic irondeposits in the Upper Cle Elum and Teanaway River Basins. Sand andgravel have been one of the most important nonmetallic mineral productsin both tonnage and value. The principal sources of sand and gravel arealluvial deposits in the Yakima River Valley.

I/Indurated means hardened by heat and pressure.

2/Glacio-lacustrine silt and sand means silt and sand deposited in

glacial lakes.

21

2.45 Project Area. Sand and gravel deposits are the only mineralresources within the project area, and sand and gravel are activelyextracted along the Yakima River north of the Mxee Bridge. Gravelstockpiles exist south of the bridge. Local land-use restrictions andthe State Shoreline Management Act could prevent new project area gravelsources from being developed.

Climate

2.46 General and Project Area. The climate of the Yakima Basinvaries from desert conditions in the lower valley to a moist alpine typein the higher mountains. To the east and north, the Rocky Mountainsshield this area from winter season cold air masses moving southwardacross Canada. To the west, the Cascades form a barrier to the easterlymovement of moist ocean air.

Temperatures

2.47 General Area. During the warmest summer months in the YakimaBasin, afternoon temperatures in the lower elevations range from 850 to950 F, with minimum temperatures from 450 to 500 F. Maximum tem-

peratures have reached 1050 to 1140 F in the warmest valleys and950 to 1000 F on the higher slopes. Minimum winter temperatures of

-200 to -250 F have been recorded at most basin stations.

2.48 Project Area. The weather station at the Yakima MunicipalAirport is about 3.5 miles west of the project area and is the closeststation to the project area. The average daily maximum and minimumtemperatures for the month of January are 35.50 and 16.40 F, forApril 64.70 and 34.30 F, for July 88.30 and 52.60 F, and forOctober 63.90 and 34.90 F.

Precipitation

2.49 General Araa. There is a sharp reduction in precipitation inthe Yakima Basin as the elevation decreases in an easterly direction fromthe summit of the Cascade Range. Annual precipitation ranges from lessthan 7 inches in the lower valleys to 100 inches or more at the crest ofthe mountains. Approximately 50 percent of the precipitation falls inthe 4 months, October through January, and 75 percent in the periodOctober through March.

2.50 Average snowfall in the lower valleys ranges from 15 to 20inches annually. Snow can be expected by the first of December andgenerally remains on the ground for periods ranging from a few days to 6weeks between mid-December and the last of February. On the higherridges, snow can be expected by the first of November and generallyremains on the ground from mid-November until June or later. Wintersnowfall increases from approximately 75 inches at 2,000 feet to 400inches or more at the crest of the Cascades.

22

2.51 Project Area. Precipitation and snowfall data for the Yakima

Airport is as follows:

Ave. Ave.Monthly Monthly

Month Total Precip. Total Snowfall

J 1.19 10.2

F 0.87 3.1

M 0.62 2.0A 0.47 TraceM 0.54 TraceJ 0.81 0.0J 0.13 0.0A 0.20 0.0

S 0.35 0.0

0 0.60 0.1

N 0.96 1.8

D 1.12 8.4YR 7.86 25.6 in.

The maximum recorded 24-hour precipitation total was 1.40 inches in

December 1964. This total accounted for 14 inches of snowfall in one

day, which was also a maximum for Yakima.

Air Quality

2.52 General Area. There is a natural particulate dust problem in

the Yakima Drainage Basin from Ellensburg downstream to Richland. The

dust is caused by sparse ground cover and wind erosion, a problem common

to much of eastern Washington. Discussion with a Yakima County Clean Air

Authority official reveals that there are a few point source air pollu-

tion problems, including a large cattle feed lot at Ellensburg and alarge gravel pit operation north of Selah Gap.

2.53 P. ect Area. The area has air quality comparable to most of

the rural areas of Yakima County. There are no serious problems. There

are, however, some identifiable point source pollution problems in the

city of Yakima from a large sawmill operation, a large gravel crushing

and gravel extraction plant, and an asphalt batch plant.

Description of Yakima River Drainage

2.54 General Area. The Yakima River Basin has an area'b 6,062

square iles in Yakima, Kittitas, and Benton Counties of south-central

Washington (see plate 1). The Yakima River rises above Keechelus Lake

(elevation 2,475 feet), and flows generally southeastward for 200 miles

to its confluence with the Columbia River near Richland. The upper part

of the river is joined by the Kachess, Cle Elum, and Teanaway Rivers andemerges from the Cascade foothills into the Kittitas Valley, flowing past

23

the city of Ellensburg, before entering a deep canyon. The river emergesfrom the canyon and passes into the middle valley above the city ofYakima where it is joined by the Naches River, its largest tributary.From Union Gap, located at the lower end of this valley, the Yakima Riverturns gradually eastward and flows into the lower valley toward theColumbia River. Toppenish and Satus Creeks join the river in thisreach. Basin elevations range from over 4,000 feet at the Yakima Riverheadwaters, to about 1,000 feet at Yakima, to about 350 feet at Rich-land. The WPRS has six irrigation reservoirs in the basin which storewater and to some degree regulate natural riverflows during periods offlood discharges.

2.55 Stream channels are wide and comparatively shallow throughoutmost of the Kittitas and middle Yakima River Valleys. In general, theyhave sufficient capacity to carry the normal high waterflows. In manyplaces the streamflow is braided, and two or more channels meander down-stream some distance before coming together agaia. Fallen trees, brush,and debris carried by the high flows of past floods are found lodgedalong these channels, restricting their capacities.

2.56 The largest water diversions from the Yakima River drainage arefor irrigation. Diversions for other uses such as industrial, municipal,and hydroelectric power generation are very small in comparison.

2.57 Project Area. Within the project area the Yakima River iscomposed of meandering channels which flow through an approximately1.5-mile-wide, 100- and 200-year flood plain. The elevation of the riverat Selah Cap (R.M. 117) is 1,070 feet, and the elevation 10 miles down-stream at Union Gap is 930 feet. Other than the Naches River, there areno major water tributaries.

Flood and Flood Damage

2.58 General Area. Floods in the Yakima River basin occur in thespring or early sumer as the result of melting snow in the mountains andfoothills. These floods are characterized by slow rise and long durationof flows. Flooding from rainfall may occur from November to February.Heavy rainfall, occasionally augmented by melting snow, produces thewinter floods. Winter flood crests are usually reduced by reservoirstorage, as flooding occurs after the irrigation season when storage isavailable. However, these reservoirs control only a small portion of theentire drainage area, and the space may not be available for a secondwinter flood if two occur.

2.59 Damaging floods in the Yakima River basin have been recorded asearly as 1894. Major floods (26,000 c.f.s. or more) occurred in 1909,1917, 1921, 1933, 1948, 1959, 1974, and 1975. The flood of December 1933was the greatest flood of record with a flow of 65,000 c.f.s. recorded atthe Parker gage, located just below Sunnyside Diversion Dam. The largestspring flood, May 1948, measured 37,700 c.f.s. at Parker. January 1974

24

and December 1975 floods were a result of warm winds and rapid snowmeltaccompanied by heavy rains. All floods since 1948 have been signifi-cantly reduced by storage regulation of the WPRS headwater reservoirs.The following tabulation shows estimates of the damages that the 1909,1917, 1921, 1933, and 1948 floods would have caused had they occurred in1976, based on 1976 prices and conditions. Flood discharges listed belowreflect reservoir regulations generally consistent with current operatingpractice. Flood control is not an authorized function at any of the sixstorage reservoirs listed in table 6.

TABLE 5

HISTORICAL YAKIMA RIVER FLOODSDAMAGE POTENTIAL, YAKIMA-UNION GAP

DamagesDischarge 1976 Prices and Conditions

Date (c.f.s.) of Development

25 Nov 1909 35,000 $ 3,100,00030 Dec 1917 52,900 9,900,00013 Dec 1921 35,800 3,500,00023 Dec 1933 65,000 13,400,00029 May 1948 37,700 4,300,000

2.60 During the 1933 flood, 46,000 acres of land were inundated andin 1948, 33,000 acres. In both instances, about 7,000 acres were inun-dated in the Kittitas Valley near Ellensburg, and over 60 percent of thetotal land flooded was along the Yakima River below the city of Yakima.Agricultural land was damaged by deposition of floating debris, sand,silt, gravel, and weed seed, and by leaching of the soil. Land waseroded, crops partially or entirely destroyed, and livestock and poultrylost. Buildings and contents, irrigation and flood control facilities,roads, highways, railroads, fences, power and communication lines, watersupply, and sewage disposal systems were damaged. Substantial losseswere sustained from traffic interruptions. Two lives were lost in the1933 flood and one in the 1948 flood.

2.61 Project Area. Flooding along the project reach of the YakimaRiver begins to cause significant damage above the following dischargesat the designated areas:

Discharge Measured at Year

Area Parker Gage (c.f.s.) Event

Right Bank:Existing west bank levee

upstream of Moxee Bridge 36,500 30Yakima Spray irrigation

field 12,000 2City of Union Gap 13,000 2

Interstate Highway 82 24,000 8

25

Left Bank:Existing east bank levee

upstream of Moxee Bridge 34,750 25

Below Moxee Bridge 16,000 3

Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood Control Storage

2.62 General Area. Six reservoirs having a combined active storage

capacity of 1,070,700 acre-feet have been constructed for irrigation in

the Yakima Drainage Basin. Storage is usually available to assist incontrolling winter floods. Table 6 shows storage in the six reservoirs.

TABLE 6

STORAGE RESERVOIRS

Active

Project River Storage Capacity(acre-feet)

Keechelus Lake Yakima (above Cle Elum) 157,800

Kachess Lake Kachess 239,000

Cle Elum Lake Cle Elum 436,900

Bumping Lake Bumping 33,700Clear Lake North Fork Tieton 5,300Rimrock (formerly

Tieton) Lake Tieton 198,000

Total 1,070,000

2.63 During the December 1933 flood, irrigation reservoirs are esti-

mated to have reduced the peak discharge on the Yakima River (Parker

Gage) from 85,000 c.f.s. to 65,000 c.f.s. For the May 1956 flood, which

had the potential of equaling the largest spring flood, the reservoirs

are estimated to have greatly reduced peak flow. In December 1959, a

flood, which uncontrolled would have been 55,000 c.f.s. (at Parker Gage),

was held to 27,400.

2.64 Project Area. There are no reservoirs within the project area.

Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Levees and Channels

2.65 General Area. Major levees on which information is available

are listed in table 7. In addition, local interests have constructednumerous short levees along the Kittitas, Naches, and Yakima Rivers.

There are 41 miles of levees on minor tributaries. Many levees are

riprapped. This has been done on the Yakima River in the vicinity of Cle

Elum, Ellensburg, and Yakima; on the Naches River; and along the lower 5

miles of the Teanaway River.

26

--.

TABLE 7

EXI STING LEVEES

Stream Location Description and Builder

Yakima Cle Elum Levees totaling 1.4 miles on bothbanks from Cle E~lum to 2 milesdownstream. Highway Department,1965.

Yakima Ellensburg Cross levee 1 mile long on leftbank 2 miles upstream of Ellens-burg. Highway Department, 1967-1968. Levees totaling 10 mileson both banks vicinity of Ellens-burg, local interests.

Yakima Yakima Levees totaling 8.7 miles on bothbanks in vicinity of Yakima.Corps of Engineers, 1947-48.

Yakima West Richland Levee 1 mile long on right bank.Corps of Engineers, 1963.

Teanaway Mouth to Mile 9 Levees by WPA and local interests,1935-37.

MinorTributaries 41 miles of levees.

2.66 No significant channel improvements for flood control have beenundertaken on major streams, but 128 miles of channel have been improvedon minor tributaries.

2.67 Project Area. Between the Moxee Bridge and the confluence ofthe Naches and Yakima Rivers, there is a system of 8.7 miles of leveesand miscellaneous drainage control structures. Most of this system wasconstructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1948. Two left bank sectionswere built by the WPRS: the most upstream section about 2,500 feet long,and the embankments along the Roza Wasteway. The Corps of Engineers'recommended plan calls for the improvement of the 8.7-mile system toprovide flood protection against the 200-year flood. The levees pre-sently provide protection against the 25- and 30-year floods. Along theright bank downstream of the Moxee Bridge, a low-lying levee protects theYakima Secondary Waste Treatment Plant and spray irrigation field againstlow frequency floods. A portion of Union Gap is protected by 1-82 on theright bank, but flooding could occur about once every 2 years from waterflowing through a culvert under the highway. The Diking District No. 1constructed and maintains a levee composed mostly of river gravel on the

27

left bank downstream of the Moxee Bridge. The levee provides a lowdegree of protection and was severely eroded during the 1972 late winterand spring runoff.

Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Watershed Protection

2.68 General and Project Area. More than 500,000 acres of croplandhave had effective combinations of practices applied which reduce erosionand sedimentation and assist in the reduction of floods. The most effec-tive practices have included conservation cropping system, use of cropresidue, irrigation water management, and land shaping. Forest landtreatment measures have included seeding and gully control work on badlyeroding soils and the rehabilitation of existing and abandoned roads andtrails. Rangeland practices of particular significance have includedseeding thousands of acres to grass, brush control, and controllingexcessivegrazing.

Existing Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood Forecasting and Emer-gency Operations

2.69 General and Project Area. The National Weather Service isresponsible for the preparation and dissemination of flood warnings andriver forecasts. They are prepared by the National Weather Service RiverForecast Center, Portland, Oregon, in conjunction with the Columbia RiverForecasting Service, a joint effort of the Corps of Engineers, theNational Weather Service, and Bonneville Power Administration in Port-land. The forecasts are relayed to the Yakima Weather Service Office fordissemination.

Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood Control Storage

2.70 General Area. The Bumping Lake reservoir enlargement project,proposed by the WPRS, would make possible improved flood control opera-tion of the WPRS reservoirs in the Naches and Yakima River watershed byproviding increased storage to meet irrigation water comitments andenhanced flows for fish. The proposed project would increase activestorage at Bumping Lake from 33,700 acre-feet to 458,000 acre-feet. Withthe increased storage, reservoirs could be operated more liberally forflood control during the spring runoff periods. However, even with theBumping Lake enlargement project, control of the 100-year flood at Takimais not possible.

2.71 Project Area. There are no actively proposed flood control

storage projects in the project area.

Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Levees and Channels

2.72 General Area. The Columbia-North Pacific Report, Appendix VII,June 1971, lists seven locations for possible levee alinements.

28

7I

Levees near South Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and Toppenish have already been

studied by the Corps of Engineers. The North Pacific Report also men-

tioned the following possible levee sites: Selah area, a levee about 4miles long on the right (west) bank of the Yakima River near Selah and alevee 3 miles long at the left (east) bank; Naches Valley, 11.25 miles oflevees in the Naches Valley on both banks; and Benton City, levee protec-tion for that part of Benton City between the benchland and the bend inthe Yakima River. At this time, it is impossible to state whether or notthe construction of any of these levees will ever be authorized and

funded.

2.73 There are no indications that improvement of existing channelsor construction of diversion channels would be a practicable method forflood control in the Yakima River Basin.

2.74 Project Area. The proposed project is the only known levee

proposal for the project area.

Water Quality

2.75 General Area. The Yakima River headwaters above Ellensburg and

the tributaries to the mainstem Yakima are generally of good quality;however, the mainstem Yakima downstream from Ellensburg has serious waterquality problems during the summer low flow months. The minimum flow inthe Yakima River occurs near Parker, below the Sunnyside Diversion andbelow the Prosser Diversion dam. Records show that flows below these

diversion points sometimes fall to less than 50 c.f.s. for several days

at a time. Return flows result in a substantial recovery, and the flowis increased between Parker and Kiona. The most significant problems arehigh stream temperatures harmful to game fish production, and the exis-tence of heavy algal growths and bacterial contamination. If the pro-posed Bumping Lake enlargement project is realized, low-flow augmentationwould aid fisheries resources in the Yakima River system.

2.76 Project Area. The July 1973 State of Washington "Continuing

Planning Process" document compiled by the State Department of Ecologylists coliform bacteria and temperature violations for the Yakima Riverfrom Sunnyside Dam upstream to the confluence with Wilson Creek (whichincludes the project reach of the Yakima River). These violations are

nonpoint source violations. Discussion with Department of Ecology offi-

cials reveals that there are also point source coliform bacteria viola-tions from the Yakima and Union Gap Sewage Treatment Plants and excessiveturbidity from gravel pits just upstream from the project area.

Vegetation

2.77 General Area. Because of the wide variations in altitude,temperatures, and precipitation within the drainage basin, natural vege-

tation is diverse. The eastern section, being relatively dry, has a

29

r . r

desert-type cover consisting of sage, short bunchgrass, and treelesslandscapes. The stream courses support narrow bands of deciduous wood-lands. Progressing westward up the eastern slopes of the Cascade Moun-tains, corditions change rapidly from thin to dense coniferous forests ofpine, larch, and fir. Extensive alpine meadows, grasslands, and fieldsof low brush typas grow near the summit of the basin.

2.78 Proiect Area. A listing of principal trees, shrubs, forbs,grasses, and aquatic plants within the project area is listed in appendixA. The dense riparian vegetation along the project reach of the YakimaRiver is important for wildlife habitat and for its scenic qualities.

2.79 As wildlife habitat, the riparian bottomland habitat producesplants in greater abundance than probably anywhere else in the basin.This great plant diversity provides numerous niches for the hundreds ofmammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertibrates whichdepend on this area for food and cover.

2.80 The lush, gieen riparian vegetation also provides a dramaticcontrast with the relatively sparse and drab sagebrush vegetation of thesurrounding uplands. The overstory vegetation consists primarily ofblack cottonwood, alder, and willow. The chief understory speciesinclude cottonwood and willow saplings, hawthorn, red-osier dogwood,rose, service berry, rumex, sumac, mullein, thistle, and rabbit-brush.Grasses include sedge, fescue, bluebunch, wheatgrass, and cheatgrass.Where sloughs or subsurface waters are present, horsetail and cattail canbe found.

Wildlife

2.81 General Area. Important game animals found within the YakimaRiver Basin were described in section 2.28. Other animals include thoselisted in appendix B.

2.82 Project Area. Appendix B is a listing of principal birds,mammals, reptiles, and amphibians which use the project area. Appendix Cis a description of the importance of the project area to the wildliferesource. It was written by Mr. Gaylin Woodard, Game Biologist for theWDG.

Fish

2.83 General and Project Area. The present anadromous game fishresource in the Yakima system consists of spring and fall chinook salmon,coho salmon, and steelhead trout. Approximately 3,000 spring chinook,1,000 fall chinook, 1,000 coho salmon, and 6,000 steelhead presentlyenter the Yakima River system, and many of these fish would be expectedto migrate past the project reach. The fall chinook, however, would notmigrate past the project reach. Since 1958 the WDG has augmented summerrun steelhead populations in the Yakima system by stocking, and the

30

Washington Department of Fisheries has augmented anadromous fish runs byoccasionally stocking juvenile spring chinook and coho salmon.

2.84 Other important game fish in the project reach of the YakimaRiver include whitefish, largemouth bass, and rainbow trout. Rainbowtrout are stocked by the WDG north of the Moxee Bridge, and bass can befound within the river and in several ponds within the flood plain.Appendix D lists all fish species which are believed to use the projectreach of the Yakima River. Nongame fish, such as carp and suckers,predominate.

Endangered or Threatened Species

2.85 Project Area. The FWS has stated that the bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), a threatened species in the state of Washington, has beenobserved occasionally within the project area. They have also statedthat the project area may be in the range of the American peregrinefalcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), an endangered species. The Corps hascontacted peregrine falcon experts in the state of Washington andquestioned them concerning the presence of these birds in the projectarea. The experts did not believe that American peregrine falcons haveever been seen in the project area.

Prehistorical and Historical Resources

2.86 General Area. The project is located in the heart of the YakimaRiver Valley, the homeland of the modern Yakima Indians. Ti~s largetribal group belongs to the Plateau Culture Area and is similar to otherNative American groups within the central portion of Washington.Although very little is known about the prehistory of the Yakima, thereis quite a lot of knowledge regarding other Plateau peoples, and much ofthis information is applicable to the Yakima Indians. Archeologistsbelieve that the area was first occupied somewhere between 11,000 and13,000 years ago and that it was continually occupied up to the time ofthe first Euro-American settlers in the early 1800's. The first Indiangroups to settle the area probably practiced a generalized hunting andgathering subsistence pattern. This generalized pattern became morespecialized as the people adapted to the changing environments and theresulting changes in the floral and faunal communities of the regionduring the late Pleistocene Epoch.

2.87 At the time of the first Euro-American contact, the basic pat-tern of subsistence was primarily unchanged from that of the preceding3,000 years. This pattern of subsistence is known as seasonal round,wherein a group will migrate from a centralized village to harvest orcollect floral or faunal foodstuffs as they appear or become ripe andthen return with these foodstuffs to the centralized village where theyare stored and later consumed. The Yakima Indians generally had their

31

winter village (central village) along a major watercourse or small

streams. These houses, semisubterranean earth lodges, were abandoned in

the early spring for the favored mat lodge to be used until the onset of

winter. Mat lodges or other summer dwellings might be erected at any

number of fishing, hunting, or gathering locations during the harvest

season (April-October).

2.88 Project Area. Archeological site records at the University of

Washington and at the Washington Archeological Research Center indicate

that no archeological sites have been recorded within or immediately

adjacent to the project area. The State Historic Preservation Officerwas consulted and no properties listed in the State Register of Historic

Places would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The National

Register of Historic Places (through December 1975) lists no properties,

registered or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, in the

vicinity of the project. However, no cultural resources survey of this

area (Selah to Union Gap) has ever been conducted, so undiscovered

resources may exist there. The likelihood that this is the case is

increased by the fact that surveys conducted along the Yakima River both

upstream and downstream from this area have resulted in the

identification of numerous cultural sites located in similar if not

identical environmental settings. Also, the area is located along a

major waterway known to have been a focus of considerable aboriginal

activity.

2.89 A cultural resources investigation of selected portions of the

proposed new levee alinement was conducted by the Corps of Engineers

during the fall of 1975. This investigation, which covered only a small

percentage of the project area, did not reveal any prehistoric or his-

toric sites within the area of survey. Due to the project's proximity to

the Yakima River, it would be expected that a more thorough cultural

resources survey would reveal evidence of prehistoric sites on or near

the proposed levee alinements or within the area of impact. Prior to

construction, a comprehensive prehistorical and historical survey would

be made of the project area. Correspondence concerning cultural

resources investigation is included in appendix E.

32

3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND-USE PLANS

3.01 Relationship to Existing Comprehensive Development Plans. Theproject area flood plain from Selah Gap to Union Gap is primarily zoned(A) agriculture, with the exception of a parcel of land zoned commercialon the right bank just downstream of the Terrace Heights Bridge and aparcel of land zoned industrial on the left bank just downstream of theTerrace Heights Bridge. The agricultural classification is designed toestablish agriculture as the principal land use for this area; to dis-courage the scattering of cotmercial, industrial, and other urban-typeuses into this area; and to establish minimal development standards whichwill assure a continuation of the open and rural character of the area.The minimum lot size is currently 2 acres. Discussions with the Princi-pal Planner for Yakima County indicate that the proposed new levees andlevee rehabilitations would be compatible with the zoning classifica-tion. For a discussion of the possible impacts of levee construction onzoning classification and future land-use changes, see paragraphs 4.31 to4.34.

3.02 Relationship to Existing Flood-Plain Zoning Restrictions.Imposed over the principle zoning are flood-plain zoning restrictions,which were established by the state in 1935 to protect hazardous areas.This zoning imposes additional restrictions on developers. Constructionof the project would offer safety and probably preclude the need for someof these restrictions, but the flood control zone designation wouldofficially remain until the State Legislature made a boundary change.Building proposals landward of the levees would probably be grantedexemptions.

3.03 Relationship to the Existing State Shoreline Management Act(SMA). For most of the Yakima River shoreline from Selah Cap to UnionCap, the local shoreline master program of the SMA designates the shore-line "conservancy," a classification which is used to maintain the exist-ing character of the shoreline. Low intensity land uses primarilyrelated to natural resources uses and diffuse recreational developmentare allowed. The rehabilitation of existing levees and the constructionof new levees set back from the river channel should not be in conflictwith this shoreline designation, nor should the project result in ashoreline classification change.

33

4.0 THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

4.01 Short-Term Construction Impacts. Paragraphs 4.02 to 4.10 dis-cuss short-term impacts to air quality, noise, water quality, vegetation,wildlife, borrow sites, and local traffic. The proposed project wouldnot be expected to cause any unusual construction problems or impacts.

4.02 Air Quality Impacts. The movement of dump trucks, bulldozers,and road graders would create the potential for localized dust problems.This problem would be substantially alleviated through periodic sprinkl-ing of the construction area.

4.03 Noise Impacts. Project-generated noise would primarily comefrom three sources: construction equipment working within the borrowpits or quarries, dump trucks moving to and from the work areas, andconstruction equipment working within the work areas. Since rock andearth material would probably be extracted from established quarries, itis anticipated that the noise from trucks and earth movers working withinthe quarries and supplying material to the Corps of Engineers' projectwould be indistinguishable from existing noise levels. Potentially, theworst noise levels would occur along the rural roads to be used by thetrucks destined for the work areas. At times during the constructionperiod, some flood-plain residents would hear trucks passing by theirhomes at a rate of perhaps one every 3 to 5 minutes during the daylighthours. Since it is not known precisely which borrow source the contrac-tor would use, these affected homes cannot be identified. Noise levelscaused by the construction of left bank levee below the Moxee Bridge andthe improvement of the left bank levee above the Moxee Bridge may also beannoying to some flood-plain residents. About 50 homes are within 1,000feet of these proposed work areas. However, for most of these residents,annoying noise levels should only be experienced for 1 to 2 weeks, sincethe construction of particular levee segments should proceed fairlyrapidly.

4.04 Water Quality Impacts. The most significant impacts to waterquality would be temporary river turbidity resulting from the placementof rock riprap along 10,600 feet (2.0 miles) of the Yakima River andexcavation and backfill within the riverbed. Placement of rock riprap inthe river channel would occur along a 2,100-foot section of the left banklevee to be improved, a 2,200-foot section of the right bank levee to beimproved, a 500-foot section of the proposed downstream left bank levee,a 2,800-foot section along the Yakima Sewage Treatment Facility levee,and a 1,900-foot and a 1,000-foot section along the 1-82 bank protec-tion. Excavation and backfill within the river would occur along theleft bank levee to be improved (1,700 c.y. excavation, 700 c.y. back-fill), along the right bank levee to be improved (800 c.y. excavation,300 c.y. backfill), and along the 1-82 bank protection (19,000 c.y.excavation, 0 c.y. backfill). Material moved in the river would beprimarily gravel, not silt, and for this reason river turbidity would be

34

. . . . . . . . .......4 ... .

expected to be minor. Construction in the river would be coordinatedwith fishery agencies to minimize adverse impacts.

4.05 Short-Term Vegetation Impacts. Construction of the proposedproject would radically alter, at least temporarily, about 66 acres ofland. Most of this acreage has at present at least a sparse cover ofvegetation, and about 20 acres of land presently support important wild-life habitat (trees, shrubs, and marsh vegetation). The 66 acres includealteration of 29 acres of land above the Moxee Bridge (6.5 acres affectedby landward extension of levees, 16 acres affected by changes to existinglandward levee slopes, and 6.5 acres affected by changes to existingriverward slopes), the elimination of 25 acres of vegetation for theconstruction of the left bank levee below the Moxee Bridge, and thealteration of 12 acres of land for the Yakima Sewage Treatment PlantLevee. Little loss of vegetation would occur during the construction ofthe 1-82 bank protection and Union Gap control structures. Most of the20 acres of important wildlife habitat is below the Moxee Bridge. Theloss of vegetation would result in a loss of aesthetic values, a loss ofwildlife, and an increase in erosion potential. 4

4.06 The loss of about 20 acres of important habitat would be parti-ally mitigated as previously described in chapter 1 (see paragraphs 1.09,1.13, 1.18, and 1.22). Long-term impacts to vegetation are discussed inparagraphs 4.36 through 4.40.

4.07 Short-Term Wildlife Impacts. Besides the elimination of impor-tant wildlife habitat, construction activity (chiefly the operation ofearth-moving equipment) would cause disruption of project area wildlifeand loss of breeding and brooding wildlife populations in imediatesurroundings. For instance, birds would be harassed and nests would beabandoned. In addition, some animals would be killed outright by equip-ment and others within the area of disturbance would be forced ontoadjoining lands where most would unsuccessfully compete for life require-ments with animals already established in adjoining lands. Long-termimpacts are discussed in paragraph 4.42.

4.08 Short-Term Fish Impacts. As noted in paragraph 4.04, construc-tion activity would cause temporary river turbidity along a few reachesof the Yakima River, but since the degree of turbidity is expected to beminor, no fishkill problems would be expected. The National MarineFisheries Service has stated that short-term impacts could be severe onthe anadromous fish resource and Indian fisheries if construction occursduring the migration of anadromous fish. Construction activity, whichwould occur in the river, would be coordinated with the appropriateFederal and state agencies to minimize impacts on fish during migrationperiods.

4.09 Borrow Site Impacts. Construction of the proposed levee andrehabilitation of the existing levees would require 255,820 c.y. of earthmaterial and 153,807 tons of rock. The sources of earth material may be

35

....... ..... .. .. ....... ..... ....... ... .. ... ... .. ....... ... ... ... .... .I ! .. . .. ... -I°'='' -.. .. .... .I " j

any or all of the following existing borrow sites: a city-owned borrowsite near Union Gap, a commercial source near Union Gap, or a comercialsource near Selah Gap. The rock source would probably be either theHorseshoe Bend Quarry about 25 miles northwest of Yakima near the NachesRiver, or the Yakima Firing Range Quarry about 15 miles northeast ofYakima. If (as expected) the borrow sources are established sources,there should be only minimal or insignificant environmental impacts to analready degraded area.

4.10 Local Traffic Impacts. In order for construction work to pro-ceed evenly, trucks carrying earth material and rock must arrive at thework areas at a rate of approximately one every 3 to 5 minutes. Thiswill appreciably increase traffic on rural roads close to the proposedlevees, and the following problems would be expected: increased safetyhazards to pedestrians, cyclists, and autos; wear on rural county roads;and occasional dirt dropped on roads. The roads near the work areaswould be periodically patrolled, and any spilled dirt or rocks would beremoved.

4.11 Short-Term Economic and Social Impacts. Paragraphs 4.12 to 4.15discuss short-term impacts to local employment and the labor force,income, local government finances, and displacement of people.

4.12 Employment and the Labor Force. An appreciable portion of thelocal labor force required for project construction will be local unemp-loyed residents. Of total project construction costs, 45 percent isestimated to be labor. The Yakima Office of the Washington State Employ-ment Security Department has in4icated that, as of August 1976, the locallabor force included about 1,776 construction workers having skillsrequired for contract construction work. Of these, approximately 1,544were employed and 232 unemployed. In addition, there were approximately2,000 unskilled agricultural workers in the area who are unemployedduring the winter and are able and willing to perform unskilled construc-tion work when available. Manpower needed to construct the Yakima-UnionGap levees will peak at 55 workers and average 21 workers over the15-month construction period. Most skills required will be equipmentoperators filled by the local construction work force. Remaining semi-skilled and unskilled labor will also be provided by the local labormarket. No other large construction projects are planned for the Yakimaarea which will absorb the unemployed labor pool. Based on informationprovided by construction people of the Corps of Engineers, WashingtonState Employment Security Department, local labor unions, and localconstruction firms, the assumption was made that 75 percent of labor willbe hired from the local unemployed labor pool. The balance of the laborused for project construction was estimated to be from outside the localarea or already employed in the local area.

36

4.13 Income. It is difficult to determine how much of the $5.17million tat i nvestment expenditure will accrue to the Yakima Countyeconomy. It will depend on the extent to which county labor and capitalresources are used for project construction and what portion of theresulting income is spent locally. Whatever this figure ultimatelybecomes, the monetary impact to Yakima County, Yakima, and Union Cap willbe more than the original investment as the income of project workers andcontractors is spent, flows through the comunity, and impacts many typesof businesses.

4.14 Local Government Finances. The non-Federal costs associatedwith the left and right bank levees and other flood control measureswould be paid by Yakima County, the city of Yakima, and the State ofWashington in a manner not yet determined. The funds would most likelycome from current revenue generated out of the local tax base of thecounty and communities from the selling of general obligation bonds.Prior to completion of the study, the sources of local Government financewill be better known.

4.15 Displacement of People, Businesses, and Farms. No people,businesses, or farms would be forced to relocate due to the constructionof the proposed flood control structures.

4.16 Long-Term Economic and Social Impacts. Paragraphs 4.17 to 4.25discuss long-term impacts to property values, property taxes, social andeconomic well-being, impacts to unprotected lands, ponding landward ofthe levees, and impacts associated with possible levee failure. Ingeneral, the proposed project would have both long-term economic andsocial benefits.

4.17 Property Values for Protected Lands. The proposed project mayraise property values on protected agricultural lands. With flood pro-tection provided to pasture on the left bank below the Moxee Bridge, thismay induce farmers to begin planting row c'ops and thereby increase landvalues.

4.18 Property Taxes Impacts. Property tax revenues should rise inareas provided protection due to the probable increase in assessedvalue of property, residences, and businesses. This could be partiallyoffset by reduction in tax revenues from land now in private hands con-verting to nontaxable levee use.

4.19 Social and Economic Well-Being Impacts for Protected Lands.Summarizing information presented in chapter 2, the completion of theproject would provide substantial flood protection for the following:

37

Upstream of MoxeeBridge Downstrean

Agricultural Land 425 ac. 2,080 ac.

Businesses (industrial, retail,wholesale, warehouses, andservices) 27 businesses 17 businesses

Residential Units 580 units 206 units

Roads and Public Facilities Roads, streets, Roads, streets,1-82, and rail 1-82, two sew-roads age treatment

plants, FAAVORTAC

Public Recreation Facilities State park, cityarboretum, fishingaccess

Substantial flood protection would, of course, be of greatest benefit tothose who live, work, and own a business within the project area floodplain. However, all citizens who depend upon or make frequent use of thesewage treatment plants, 1-82, SR-24, the Yakima Airport, the state park,and the city arboretum would also benefit from completion of the project.

4.20 Other social well-being impacts are as follows: Completion ofthe proposed project would reduce the problem of areas east of the pro-posed levees becoming isolated when floods cover access roads. Duringfloods, many farms situated at the end of one-lane private dirt roadshave been isolated. Residents have been unable to utilize medical andpolice services, stores, churches, and schools during periods of flood-ing. The value of such improvements and services is lost when indivi-duals cannot avail themselves of the required services. Should a 200-year flood occur, emergency aid could assist to some extent, but socialwell-being is neither preserved nor enhanced in a flood situation. Theexpense and hardship of evacuation adds discomfort and financiul stressto families affected. Alleviation of the threat of flooding and associ-ated hazards results in peace of mind and social well-being for theresidents of the area.

4.21 Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmlands. The U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation Service, has stated there would be noimpacts on unique farmlands. As the alinement is now drawn, the south-ernmost spur of the levee would, however, cross prime lands (Toppenishsilt loam and Wenas silt loam). The levee would protect several hundredacres of left bank prime farmland.

38

-~ 4-

4.22 Impacts of Unprotected Lands. Proposed new levees and leveeimprovements would not cause significant adverse impacts to any upstream,downstream, or project area flood-plain lands. On the left bank floodplain above the Moxee Bridge, several permanent residences and mobilehomes are located outside the levee alinement, but the proposed leveeimprovement would not increase water surface elevations for the 200-yearflood and, therefore, would not cause the residences any additional floodproblems. On the left bank below the bridge, the only developmentsoutside the proposed levee alinement are a small mobile home, an officefor a gravel company, and one farm unit. Project construction wouldincrease the water surface elevation not over 2 inches for a 100-yearflood and not over 3 inches for a 200-year frequency flood. This wouldcause no noticeable increase in damages to these structures.

4.23 Impacts of Ponding Landward of the Levees. As previously dis-cussed in paragraph 1.30, ponding in the project area caused by localdrainage is presently not a significant problem. With the exception ofonly one area, the completion of the proposed project should not increasethe depth of any ponding which presently occurs in the project areaduring high streamflows. The one exception is at the southernmost end ofthe proposed left bank levee below the Moxee Bridge, at the angle pointwhere the levee turns east. During a severe storm and flood on themainstem, water could pond over about 50 acres of land, reaching a maxi-mum depth of 5 feet along the levee. Depths could slightly exceed pre-project conditions; however, velocities would be near zero as compared tohigh velocity under preproject conditions. The 50 acres of land arepresently in pasture, and no adverse impacts from temporary and veryinfrequent pondlng would occur in this area.

4.24 The Possibility of Levee Failure. Assuming proper levee main-tenance, the project would provide substantial long-term flood protectionalong the Yakima River both upstream and downstream of the Moxee Bridge.The following large floods would, however, be expected to have the fol-lowing effects: A flood in excess of the 200-year event would not beexpected to be contained by any of the levee sections. The 200-yearflood event (70,000 c.f.s.) would be contained by the upstream levees.The 200-year flood would be contained by levees downstream of the MoxeeBridge, except on the right bank by Highway 1-82. The 100-year floodevent (55,000 c.f.s.) would be expected to be contained by all proposedimprovements. However, in the absence of flood-fighting measures, the100-year flood would overtop and possibly wash out a section of 1-82 nearUnion Gap. This flood fighting is part of the recommended plan.

4.25 Lack of proper maintenance or the impact of a flood greater thanthe design flood could result in levee failure, and subsequent localflooding might be worse than that experienced with preproject condi-tions. Further aggravating this problem is the chance that the presenceof the levee would impart a long-term sense of security to residents inthe protected area, encouraging them to improve existing structures andintensify present agricultural practices. Due to land-use controls and

39

restrictions, major land-use changes would not be expected; however, the

Washington Department of Game has pointed out that there are no guaran-tees that present land-use controls and restrictions would not somedaychange.

4.26 Long-Term Esthetic Impacts. The completion of the proposed

levees and the rehabilitation of the existing levees would cause theflood-plain lands to take on less of a natural and more of a man-influenced appearance. The existing levees upstream of the Moxee Bridge

would be enlarged as previously described, and much of the riverward

slope would receive additional riprap, resulting in a rocked slope from

the levee toe to top. In addition, the Washington State Parks and Recre-ation Commission has stated that if the existing levee through SportsmanPark is rehabilitated without plantings of trees and shrubs on the land-ward levee slope, then the result would be severe esthetic degradation in

Sportsman State Park. The Corps of Engineers will work closely with the

Commission during post authorization planning to prevent degradation.

4.27 Much more of a visual impact would occur downstream of the Moxee

Bridge on the left bank. The levee alinement runs along an area which iscurrently native riparian vegetation, improved pasture, and marsh. Onthe riverward side of the 2.9-mile levee, 2.0 miles of levee would be

riprapped. The levee would not be highly visible in the project area,but the continuous mound of earth rising to as high as 13 feet would beseen by the local east bank community.

4.28 The levee along the sewage treatment plant would be enlarged

and expanded to the south. The landward slope would be easily visible

from 1-82 but not the riprap. The 1-82 bank protection would consist ofadditional rock and would result in only a very minor change in thelandscape.

4.29 Long-Term Outdoor Recreation Impacts. The completion of theproposed project would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on out-

door recreation. The rehabilitated levees would offer increased flood

protection to such developed recreation areas as the Yakima City Arbore-tum, a private campground, and Sportsman State Park. Assuming that the

proposed downstream levees would be open to the public (especially theleft bank levee), the project would also create access to an area which

is still mostly undeveloped and which is presently closed to the public.

It is possible that light use would be made of the left bank levee for

short hikes and nature observation. However, project completion would

also destroy riparian vegetation, reduce fish and wildlife populations,and reduce fishing and hunting success.

4.30 Completion of the project could also have an impact on futureplans for outdoor recreation in the flood-plain area. For the past

decade, various local groups have studied and actively sought the

40

establishment of a Selah Gap to Union Gap flood-plain park (often refer-red to as the Freeway Park). The city of Yakima has prepared a MasterPlan Study of the Yakima Freeway Park. Should the Freeway Park be real-ized, it is likely that the proposed new levees and the rehabilitatedlevees would form much of the park boundary and could be used as trailslinking most of the park together.

4.31 Long-Term Land-Use Plans and Land-Use Changes Impacts. Comple-tion of the project may result in pressure to change the existing agri-cultural zoning on the protected lands to a higher use classification,which would allow for such developments as new single-family homes onsmall lots. (The current minimum lot size restriction is 2 acres.) Ifmore intensive land development does occur, such impacts as reduction ofwildlife populations and additional water pollution would probably result.

4.32 Discussions with the Principal County Planner, however, revealthe county's desire to retain the predominantly rural flavor of theflood-plain land. The planner anticipates that the agricultural classi-fication would persist. With or without additional flood-plain protec-tion, it would be expected that eventually a few more homes and mobilehomes would locate in the flood plain, and more intensive agriculturewould be practiced.

4.33 For the two parcels of land zoned commercial and industrial (seesection 3.01), additional flood protection may encourage more intensivecomercial and industrial development landward of the levees near theTerrace Heights Bridge area.

4.34 As the proposed levee alinements and levee improvements are nowdrawn, hundreds of acres of flood-plain land both upstream and downstreamof the Moxee Bridge would be left inside the levees and unprotected fromflooding. It is conceivable that this land would never receive floodprotection. Thus, completion of the proposed project would help insurethat the present wild and natural appearance of those lands would remainin an essentially low state of development (some pasture and light recre-ation use).

4.35 Long-Term Biological Impacts. Paragraphs 4.36 to 4.44 discusslong-term impacts to project area vegetation, fish, and wildlife.

4.36 Long-Term Vegetation Impacts. As stated in paragraph 4.05,about 66 acres would be lost to initial levee construction (20 acres ofhigh quality wildlife habitat). The planting of grasses, forbs, shrubs,and trees would replace some of this lost vegetation, but the addition ofabout 5.3 acres of new rock riprap to the upstream levees and the addi-tion of 3.6 acres of rock riprap below the Moxee Bridge would probablyrepresent a permanent loss of vegetation. The maintenance practice ofperiodically removing trees and shrubs from the levee tops and slopeswould represent a long-term loss of forest cover. Also, benefits towildlife habitat resulting from periodic flooding will also be lost.

41

These benefits include weed seed deposition, alluvial fertilization fromsilt deposits, and insect food supplies.

4.37 The photos at the end of Chapter 4 show the character of theexisting vegetation within the project area. The levee segments onphotos 1, 2, and 3 would all be affected by the proposed left bank leveerehabilitation upstream of the Moxee Bridge. Photo I shows an area whichwould be raised and riprapped, and presently supports only a sparse coverof vegetation. Photo 2 shows part of a heavily-vegetated 1,300-footsection which would be raised and riprapped. Photo 3 shows part of aheavily-vegetated 2,000-foot section along Sportsman State Park whichwould be raised about 1 foot, riprapped, and then partially covered withtopsoil and seeded. Photo 1 is more representative of the typical vege-tation found on and adjacent to the upstream east bank levee

4.38 Photos 4, 5, and 6 show the character of the existing vegetationalong the proposed right bank levee rehabilitation upstream of thebridge. Photo 4 shows an area which would be raised and riprapped, andpresently supports a sparse cover of forbs, grasses, and small shrubs.Photo 5 shows part of a heavily-vegetated 1,500-foot section just southof Freeway Lake which would be raised about I foot and riprapped. Photo6 shows a Inavily-forested 1,500-foot levee section which would be raisedabout I foot and riprapped. Photo 4 is more representative of the typi-cal vegetation found on and adjacent to the upstream west bank levee.

4.39 Photos 7, 8, and 9 depict the character of the land throughwhich the proposed downstream left bank levee would be constructed. Partof the alinement would extend through a still largely natural area con-sisting of cottonwood overstory with a shrub layer of primarily willow,wild rose, and sumac, as in the background of photo 7. Another part ofthe levee would extend through improved pasture, as pictured in photo 8,and a small part of the levee would extend through marsh, as pictured inphoto 9. The construction of the levee would eliminate about I acre ofmarsh vegetation.

4.40 Photo 10 shows the small existing levee protecting the YakimaSewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the new levee would eliminatebetween 20 and 40 cottonwood trees within the area.

4.41 Vegetation impacts associated with 1-82 bank protection would beminor because the area is already riprapped.

4.42 Long-Term Wildlife Impacts. The following wildlife paragraphshave been extracted from the FWS's Fish and Wildlife Report (27 September1976), from previous correspondence with the Service concerning theimpacts the proposed project would have on fish and wildlife resourcesand from comments by the Washington State Department of Game. The lossof food, space, and cover provided by the volume of riparian habitatalong the Yakima River would be felt by all wildlife in and adjacent to

42

r .

the project. Pheasant and chukar would be adversely affected by the loss

of the critical seasonal habitat necessary to sustain their populations

during stress periods. Quail and cottontail rabbits are highly dependenton riparian vegetation for daily cover, as well as a food source through-

out the year, and they too would suffer losses. Mourning doves, nongamesongbirds, and raptors are particularly dependent upon the larger shrubs

and trees that will be removed during construction and subsequent leveemaintenance. Geese and other waterfowl utilize streamside vegetation and

trees for grazing and nesting. Fur animals are entirely dependent on the

close vegetation and water relationship for all their life requirements.Deer, which are commonly observed along the river bottom in the Union Gap

area, require access to riparian habitat during severe winters. The

absence of food and cover would make all rock-riprapped areas barriersthat are virtually unusable to most wildlife. In addition to theselong-term construction and maintenance impacts, should the project

encourage urbanization landward of the levees, then wildlife would sufferadditional losses. The Washington State Department of Game has also

noted that significant losses would occur to waterfowl if the leveesencourage the conversion of wet pasture at the Moxee Game Reserve to row

cropping. The Fish and Wildlife Report stated that the initial loss ofwildlife habitat would result in the following losses (as expressed inman's use of the resource) within the project area:

Without With Hunter-days

Group the Project the Project Losses

Upland Game 370 hunter-days 280 hunter-days 90

Big Game 20 hunter-days 20 hunter-days 0Waterfowl 550 hunter-days 500 hunter-days 50

940 hunter-days 800 hunter-days 140 hunter-days

NonconsumptiveWildlife 2,100 man-days 1,700 man-days 400 man-days

Due to project changes made in 1978 by the Corps of Engineers, the pro-

posed project was again reviewed by the FWS. In a letter to the Corps of

Engineers dated 4 October 1978, the FWS stated that original project loss

estimates are no longer valid. They recognize that during the advanced

engineering and design phase of project implementation (which is the same

as postauthorization planning), the FWS and state conservation agencies

will be given the opportunity to work closely with the Corps of Engineersin developing more adequate habitat replacement measures and mirnr levee

realinement alternatives which would markedly reduce project impacts to

fish and wildlife.

4.43 Long-Term Fish Impacts. The removal of riparian vegetation and

the addition of rock riprap, especially along the one-half-mile stretchwhere the Yakima Sewage Treatment Plant Levee abuts the main stem Yakima

River, would remove streamside shade and fish holding and feeding waters

43

and thus would adversely affect fish populations within the projectarea. The addition of riprap at customary fishing locations could alsomake fisherman access more difficult. The Fish and Wildlife Report hasestimated that the project would reduce the present usage of the resourcewithin the project area from 3,000 angler-days to 2,650 angler-days, fora loss of 350 angler-days. However, the FWS letter of 4 October 1978states that the Service no longer has confidence in these loss estimatesbecause of late Corps project changes, changes in habitat use and value,and because of an increased demand for consumptive and non-consumptivefish and wildlife oriented recreation. The Washington Department ofFisheries has stated that levees would help prevent loss of downstreamanadromous migrants (salmon) from stranding as floodflows recede.

4.44 Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species. As stated inparagraph 2.85, the FWS has stated that the bald eagle, a threatenedspecies, has been occasionally seen in the project area, and the Americanperegrine falcon, an endangered species, may also use the area, However,it seems very unlikely that the American peregrine falcon has ever actu-ally been seen in the project area. It also seems unlikely that theproposed levee project would adversely impact the bald eagles whichoccasionally use the area. If Congress ultimately authorizes and fundsthis project, the Corps of Engineers would conduct a biological assess-ment for both species in accordance with the Endangered Species Actduring post authorization planning. If the assessment finds that adverseimpacts may occur, the consultation process would be initiated and anyproblems resolved before construction is initiated. Also, the southern-most end of the proposed left bank levee downstream of the Moxee Bridgewould be approximately 6,000 feet from a unique 14-acre sphagnum bogwhich attracts a rare, silver-bordered, fritillary butterfly (Blariaselene). This distance should be great enough to insure that the projectwould have no adverse impacts on the butterfly. The butterfly, thoughrare, is not presently classified as either an "endangered" or "threat-ened" species under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

4.45 Long-Term Historical and Prehistorical Resources In acts.Although a preliminary cultural investigation did not reveal the presenceof significant cultural resources within the areas investigated, there isreason to believe that such sites do exist in the vicinity of the pro-ject. Thus, construction of the project may directly, through construc-tion, or indirectly, through land-use change, result in the loss ofcultural resources. A more thorough cultural resources survey would beconducted early in postauthorization planning. All items having anyapparent archeological interest discovered during any construction acti-vities would be carefully preserved. The Contractor would leave thearcheological find undisturbed and would immediately report the find tothe Contracting Officer. The State Office of Archeology and HistoricPreservation would be contacted by the Corps, and informed of the findand the Corps' salvage program.

44

Photo 1 Photo 2

Left bank rehab., looking south, just Left bank rehab., looking south justsouth of Terrace Heights. north of Terrace Heights Bridge.

Trees and shrubs to the left and

right of the levee top would be lost.

Photo 3 Photo 4

Left bank rehab., looking north, in Right bank rehab., looking north,vicinity of Sportsman Park. Trees midway between Terrace Heightsto the right of the levee top would and Moxee Bridges.be lost.

45

Photo 5 Photo 6

Right bank rehab., looking north, in Right bank rehab., looking north,an area just south of Freeway Lake. in an area north of the MoxeeGrasses, forbs, and shrubs to the Bridge. Trees to the left ofleft of the levee top would be lost. the levee top would be lost.

p

" -' . .. .. . . . t . .

Photo 7 Photo 8

Left bank, looking south, just Left bank, looking south, midwaysouth of Highway 24. between Moxee Bridge and southern

end of proposed levee.

46

Photo 9 Photo 10

Left bank, marsh area near southern Right bank, Secondary WasteTreat-end of proposed levee. ment Facility Levee, looking

south, taken from Highway 24.

47

5.0 ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED

5.01 The proposed project would have short-term construction impactson air quality, water quality, borrow sites, local traffic, noisep vege-tation, and wildlife. The first three types of impacts would be insigni-ficant or minimal, and the last four would be significant. Noise andlocal traffic impacts would result from trucks travelling at the rate ofone every 3 to 5 minutes along rural roads near the proposed levee aline-ments. Project construction would radically alter about 66 acres ofland, some of which has important stands of riparian vegetation. Theloss of this vegetation would be a loss to wildlife (both game and non-game).

5.02 For the short-term and long-term, the removal of riparian vege-tation and addition of rock riprap would adversely affect project areafish populations. In addition, rocked banks would hinder fishermanaccess.

5.33 The completion of the proposed levees and the rehabilitationof the existing levees would cause flood-plain lands to take on less of anatural and more of a man-influenced appearance. This would be anadverse aesthetic loss to some people within the community.

5.04 The project would have long-term adverse impacts on wildlife andwildlife habitat. The addition of about 5.3 acres of riprap to theupstream levees and the addition of 3.6 acres of riprap below the bridgewould result in a permanent loss of vegetation. Also, the periodicremoval of trees and shrubs by the local sponsor for levee maintenancewould result in a long-term loss of forest cover in forested areas.Birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians dependent upon a cover oftrees and shrubs would suffer some permanent losses. The project would

permanently eliminate some flat shorelines, with subsequent adverseimpacts to waterfowl, shorebirds, and doves. Due to the previouslydescribed mitigation proposals, wildlife populations would begin torecover several years after project construction but the populations

would probably never fully return to the preproject numbers.

5.05 Unidentified prehistoric and historic resources, which couldexist within the project area, may be destroyed if not salvagedprior to construction.

48

6,0 AL79RNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

6.01 Do Nothing. No further structural action would be taken beyondthose projects already under active consideration (such as enlargement ofBumping Lake) and the maintenance of existing levees. Nonstructuralactions (such as flood-plain zoning restrictions and flood proofing fornew flood-plain developments) would not be implemented to control futureflood damages.

6.02 Assuming this alternative was chosen, recurring floods withassociated average annual damages of $465,900 would continue, with damagelevels expected to increase in the future due to increased flood-plaindevelopment. Disruption of public services and potential hazard of life,health, and safety would continue unmitigated. In addition, the encroach-ment of conventional and mobile homes on the flood plain would lead todestruction of riparian wildlife habitat. This alternative was elimin-ated from further consideration in September 1972, as Yakima County andthe State of Washington were in the process of implementing a program formanaging land use in flood hazard areas.

present conditions within the project area. Average annual flood damages

would be about $465,900, but the growth of damage levels would be lessthan the "Do Nothing" alternative. The following existing flood controlstructures would remain: The 8.7-mile levee system upstream of the MoxeeBridge (25- to 30-year protection), a low-lying levee which protects theYakima spray irrigation field, 1-82, and a left bank, low-lying leveesouth of the bridge. Present flood-plain management measures, includingland-use zoning, development restrictions, and early flood warning, wouldcontinue. Since state and national flood control laws require futureflood-plain development to be flood proofed up to the 100-year floodlevel, flood proofing would also be required for any new structures builtwithin the flood plain. By participating in the National Flood InsuranceProgram, Yakima County and the cities of Yakima and Union Gap are obligedto develop and enforce flood-plain comitment, the Federal Government hasmade flood insurance available at a subsidized rate for existing resi-dental and comercial structures in those communities.

6.04 Flood-plain management alone would do nothing to mitigate thepresent level of flood damage. Project area manufacturing, retail andservice businesses, farms, outdoor recreation areas, and such publicfacilities as the Yakima and Union Gap Sewage Treatment Plants, the FAAVORTAC, a section of 1-82, and other roads would all remain threatened byflooding. All previous social well-being impacts discussed in paragraph4.20 would continue to add discomfort,inconvenience, and present health and safety problems to flood-plainresidents.

6.05 Implementation of flood-plain management alone would not resultin the destruction of wildlife habitat as the reconmended plan would.

49

r - •. --o

However, both alternatives would probably result in some additionaldevelopment of the flood plain with consequent adverse impacts to wild-life and habitat.

6.06 The alternative was eliminated because existing flood problemare substantial and this alternative does not address present flooddamages.

6.07 Flood-Plain Management with Additional Upstream Storage. Flood-plain management measures discussed in paragraph 6.03 would continue, andexpansion of developed areas would be subject to flood-plain zoningcontrols. Upstream storage projects would be constructed where feasible din addition to those projects already under active consideration (such asenlargement of Bumping Lake). The primary purpose of the new storagewould be flood control.

6.08 Implementation of this plan would result in a reduction in flooddamages and reduce hazard to life and safety. The new reservoirs couldpossibly be used for other purposes, such as water supply, generation ofelectricity, flat water recreation, irrigation, etc.

6.09 Adverse impacts would, of course, depend upon the exact locationand size of the flood control reservoir, but the following generalimpacts could occur: relocation of former project area residents, lossof free-flowing river sections and recreation activities associated withfree-flowing rivers, loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and adverseimpacts to game fish. 1

6.!0 The alternative was eliminated because, other than the proposedBumping Lake Enlargement, there appear to be no economically justifiableflood control storage sites. In order to significantly reduce flooddamage between Selah Gap and Union Gap, additional storage projects wouldbe needed on the Teanaway River, on the Yakima River near Ellensburg, andon the Naches River below Rattlesnake Creek. Although specific projectshave not been evaluated in detail, a review of previous studies in a 1956Corps of Ingineers' report and the 1972 Columbia-North Pacific Comprehen-sive Framework Study indicate development of remaining major storagesites is not economically feasible on the basis of flood control alone.

6.11 Flood-Plain Management with Channel Modification. Floodplainmanagement measures discussed in paragraph 6.03 would be continued, andexpansion of developed areas would be subject to floodplain zoning con-trols. The main Yakima River Channel would be deepened, widened, or bothfrom Moxee Bridge downstream to Ahtanum Creek (a distance of 4.5 miles)to improve its flood-carrying capacity. Lowering of footings or completereconstruction of the Moxee and 1-82 Bridges could be required, as wellas heavy riprapping of channel sides and bottom. In addition, improve-ment of the levee upstream would be required.

50

I.

6.12 Adoption of this alternative would reduce flood damages betweenSelah and Union Gaps; however, flooding and flood damage would probablybe aggravated downstream of Union Gap. The following other adverseimpacts would occur: loss of aesthetic values along the Moxee Bridge toUnion Gap reach of the Yakima River, loss of project area wildlife andwildlife habitat, and adverse impacts to fish along the project reach andfor several miles downstream of Union Gap. In addition, implementationof this plan would result in large maintenance costs due to requiredannual dredging of the channel.

6.13 The alternative was eliminated because it is not economicallyfeasible, probably creates downstream flood problems, and has seriousadverse environmental impacts.

6.14 Purchase of Development Rights. Rights of floodway owners todevelop their land to higher use would be purchased to limit growth inflood damage potential. This would, in effect, involve acquisition of aflowage easement as a means of preventing further obstructions to thepassage of flood waters. Flood proofing would be required of new devel-opments in the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood insurancewould be used to partially indemnify for recurring flood damages todwellings. No new levees or other structural measures would be under-taken beyond those projects already under active consideration.

6.15 The impacts of this plan would be essentially the same as flood-plain management impacts (paragraphs 6.04 to 6.06). The alternativewould aid in the reduction of future, iucreased level of flood damages,but the existing level of flood damage would continue. Because the exist-ing level of flood damage is substantial, this alternative was eliminated.

6.16 Purchase of Floodwaz. About 850 acres of land lying within thefloodway would be purchased in fee title and held in public open-spaceuse. Management measures discussed in paragraph 6.03 would continue forthose lands lying outside the floodway. Five to ten permanent residentsof this area would be displaced, with buildings and other improvementsremoved. No new levees or other structural measures would be untertakenbeyond those projects already under consideration.

6.17 Through flood-plain management, the plan would guide futuredevelopment within the flood plain and aid in preventing an increase infuture flood damages. To a small extent the plan would also reduce thepresent level of flood damage through the purchase and removal of a fewhomes within the 850-acre floodway. The retention of the 850-acre flood-way in public open space could become an enjoyable natural park area, andat a later date, could be included within the proposed Selah Gap to UnionGap Freeway Park if that idea becomes a reality.

6.18 This alternative was eliminated because the cost of purchasingthe 850-acre floodway and the few homes would be much greater than the

51

expected flood damage reduction benefits. Also, it would be expectedthat the adverse social impacts, such as local residents forced to selltheir land or, in some cases, sell their land and relocate, would not beacceptable to the local sponsor or coumunity.

52

7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENTAND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

7.01 Assuming proper long-term levee maintenance and repairs, theproject would provide short-term and long-term flood protection forprivate residences, businesses, agricultural land, and public facili-ties. Furthermore, there appears to be little likelihood that somefuture project, such as a large flood control reservoir, would ever becompleted which would eliminate the need for this flood protection.

7.02 There is a long-term possibility that the security of improvedand expanded levees may encourage urbanization of this still mostly ruralarea. Permanent losses to fish, wildlife, recreation, and water qualitywould result from increased development. However, based on discussionswith the County Planner, it seems more likely that the rural areas to beprotected by the project would, in the long-term, remain rural. Residen-tial land use in the Yakima-Union Gap area is projected to concentratewithin the currently zoned residential areas, resulting in a higherdensity residential use.

53

.....' ... I , ... ... .. ... i .. . .. .. ... . .. . ..11 ... ....I*

- .. .II 'i' i 'z.. . -- - ' - .. .. .... ... '* * . . ... " ... ... ... .. ...

8.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IKrERIEVABLE COIMMITENTS OF RESOURCES WHICHWOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SWOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED

8.1 The irreversible and irretrievable comitment of resources wouldbe to use land for the expansion and improvement of existing levees andthe creation of new levees. This land would be devoted primarily toflood protection, but should the local coimunity develop a Yakima RiverFloodway Park, the levees could also be used for park trails. The place-ment of rock riprap and periodic removal of trees and shrubs from thelevee proper would lower the carrying capacity of the area for wildliferesources. The removal of streamside vegetation and addition of rockriprap would adversely affect project area fish populations and fishermanaccess. Any prehistorical and historical resources existing in the leveeright-of-way or in places where project-induced development occurs, andwhich is not recovered by salvage operations prior to construction, couldbe irretrievably lost. Even if extensive salvage operations are carriedout on such sites, loss could occur.

8.02 Construction materials and Federal and local sponsor financingwould be irreversibly and irretrievably comitted to this project, shouldit be authorized and funded. These materials and monies would not beavailable for some other project. Likewise, human labor and skills wouldbe comitted to this project for the duration of the construction period.

54

VV

9.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSE

9.01 Public and Agency Participation. The initial public meeting washeld on 17 February 1972 in Yakima, Washington, to explain the studybackground and afford local interests an opportunity to express theirviews on flood problems and related water resource development needs. InMarch 1972, the first of four draft brochures was distributed to knowninterested parties, including all persons who attended the Februarypublic meeting. Information on the study and flood problems and a des-cription of conceptual alternative solutions were presented for each ofseven subreaches of the Yakima River Basin. A workshop was held in April1972 to obtain additional public input. Draft No. 2 of the brochure wasdistributed in advance of the second public meeting held on 24 October1972. In December 1972, a second workshop was held at the TerraceHeights Grange Hall to specifically discuss flood problems in the vicin-ity of Yakima and Union Gap.

9.02 Brochure draft No. 3 was distributed prior to the third publicmeeting conducted on 31 January 1974 in Yakima. Results of preliminaryengineering, economic, and environmental studies of alternative flooddamage reduction measures for the Yakima-Union Gap area were presented inthe brochure and discussed at the meeting. A decision was reached duringthe meeting that detailed studies should be performed of the alternativewhich involved flood-plain management and levee construction. A numberof informal meetings and briefings of local groups were held in additionto the foregoing, as well as onsite inspections of the project area withrepresentatives of state and Federal fish and wildlife and recreationagencies. County and city officials were kept fully informed of study

progress. Final public meeting was held on 19 January 1977 in Yakima,Washington, to present the results of the detailed studies reflected inthis report. Prior to the meeting, brochure draft No. 4 was distributedto all known interested parties containing the District's tentatively

recomuended plan.

9.03 Government Agency and Public Response to Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. The draft EIS was distributed to interested agenciesand citizens in January 1977. All comments received which are relevant

to the draft statement or the project are summarized below, and copies ofall letters received are shown in appendix F. In addition to these

co-ments, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Office ofthe Chief of Engineers reviewed a preliminary draft of the revised draft

EIS in January through March 1978 and made the following recommendations:(1) change the level of flood protection for levees downstream of theMoxee Bridge from 100-year protection to 200-year protection, and (2)armor most of the left bank levee below the Moxee Bridge.

9.04 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency has rated this draft

55

environmental statement LO-1, LO (Lack of Objectives) 1 (adequate Infor-mation). The rating will be published in the Federal Register in accor-dance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on pro-posed Federal action under section 209 of the Clean Air Act.

Response: Noted.

9.05 U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comment: General Com ents. These documents (the draft EIS and draftfeasibility report), in general, satisfactorily address project impactson fish and wildlife resources.

Response: Noted.

Comment: Borrow Sources. Insert the following sentence: Borrow andspoil areas would be carefully selected to minimize problems of habitatrestoration.

Response: As stated in paragraph 1.29, we believe we can make use ofexisting, long-term borrow sites, and as such, we would not need habitatrestoration.

Comment: Project Maintenance. We suggest that the text identifyareas receiving habitat enhancement so that routine maintenance would notdisrupt them.

Response: Paragraph 1.32 has been changed to include this.

Comment: Project Maintenance. We believe that you should considerremoving the sentence which calls for the local interests to remove treesand large shrubs from a portion of the floodway between Moxee Bridge andSelah Gap in order to pass design flood. Our representatives have dis-cussed with Corps of Engineers' personnel the matter of vegetationremoval in the floodway. We were assured at that time by project engin-eers that the levee would pass design floods without need for removal oftrees and large shrubs from the floodway. If this situation has recentlychanged, it should be more adequately addressed in the text.

Response: We regret the confusion this section has caused. However,it does appear that some floodway maintenance upstream of the MoxeeBridge will still be necessary even if the project is constructed.Paragraph 1.32 has been revised to discuss this in more detail.

Comment: Interrelationships and Compatibility with Existing or Pro-posed Corps of Engineers or Other Agency Projects. The Bureau of Recla-mation is working with fish and wildlife service personnel in evaluatingproblems and solutions to fisheries resources involving Rosa Wasteway.It appears that any solution would be affected by the proposed levee, and

56

I-

we suggest this matter could be acknowledged and addressed in this

section.

Response: Paragraph 1.39 has been expanded to include this.

Comment: Project Area Outdoor Recreation. Remove the phraseless desirable nongame fish . . ." and replace with ". . . other

nongame fish ...

Response: Paragraph 2.31 (2) has been changed to include this.

Coment: General Area Water Quality. We have understood that theproposed Bumping Lake Reformulation Project could, by increasing lowflows, benefit fisheries in the Yakima River watershed. So, we suggestthe following rewording: If the proposed Bumping Lake ReformulationProject is realized, low-flow augmentation would aid fisheries resourcesin the Yakima River system.

Response: Paragraph 2.75 has been revised to include this.

Comnent: Endangered or Threatened Species. We suggest the followingrewording of the first sentence from "... the only species . ." to

. . the only known species . ...

Response: Paragraph 2.85 has been revised to include this.

Comment: Short-Term Vegetation Impacts. Remove the word "insignifi-ant iu

Rsponse. In Paragraph 4.05, "insignificant" has been replaced with"little."-

Comment: Short-Term Wildlife Impacts. We suggest rewording the firstsentence from ". . . would case temporary loss of . . ." to ". . . wouldcause disruption ... "

Response: Paragraph 4.07 has been revised to include this.

Comment: Short-Term Fish Impacts. We ask consideration of the fol-lowing rewording: Timing of construction activity on the riverward sidewill be coordinated with appropriate Federal and state agencies to mini-mize impacts on fisheries during migration periods.

Response: Paragraph 4.08 has been revised to include this.

Comment: Long-Term Vegetation Impacts. We recommend revising thefirst sentence from ". . . (17 acres important as wildlife habitat)" to

. .. (17 acres of high quality wildlife habitat)."

57

Response: Paragraph 4.36 has been revised to include this. The 17-acrefigure has been rounded up to 20 acres.

Coment: Long-Term Vegetation Impacts. Replace "insignificant" with

1minor. ,

Response: Paragraph 4.41 has been changed to include this.

Comment: Long-Term Fish Impacts. It would apparently be more accur-ate to revise the last sentence to read: The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has estimated that the proposal would result in an initial lossof 350 angler-days of fishing within the project area; however, revegeta-tion and other mitigation measures may significantly reduce this impact.

Response: For the authorization report, the Corps of Engineers willnot be reconnending mitigation measures which could significantly reducethe loss of 350 angler-days. At the present time we do not know of anysuch measures which could be used for this project. Therefore, we haverevised paragraph 4.43, and no mention is made of lessening this initialloss.

Comment: Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species. The firstsentence could be revised to say ". . . is the only officially designatedendangered species known to utilize the project site." We also suggest abrief discussion of project proximity to the unique 14-acre sphagnum bogowned by Nature Conservancy, which attracts a rare silver-bordered frit-illary butterfly (Blaria selene).

Response: Paragraph 4.44 has been revised to include both concerns.

Comment: Effects Which Cannot be Avoided. We suggest changing thethird sentence from ". . . would suffer small but permanent losses" to"would suffer some permanent losses."

Response: Paragraph 5.04 has been changed to include this.

Comment: Appendix C. Common names of animals should not be capital-ized (unless a proper name) nor underlined, only scientific names.

Response: Appendix C has been revised to include this.

Comment: Appendix C. The comuon name for sparrow hawk is Americankestrel.

Response: Appendix C has been revised to include this.

Coment: Appendix C. Neither the northern bald eagle nor osprey ispresently classified as an endangered species under Federal listing inWashing ton.

58

Response: Appendix C has been changed to include this.

9.06 U.S. Department of the Interior - National Park Service.

Comment: We are pleased to learn that there will be comprehensivesurvey of the project area for cultural resources prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Resources which are discovered should, of course,be evaluated for eligibility for the "National Register of HistoricPlaces," and if eligible, they should be nominated.

Response: Noted.

9.07 U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation(now Herigage Conservation and Recreation Service).

Comment: We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for flooddamage reduction at Yakima-Union Gap, Yakima River Basin, Washington. Webelieve it adequately describes project impacts on outdoor recreation andthe related environment.

Response: Noted.

9.08 U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation (nowWater and Power Resources Service).

Comment: Written Comments Requested. If the separate interim agen-cies are to be listed in your distribution list, then several othersshould be added, including the Bureau of Reclamation.

Response: This section has been changed to include this.

Comment: Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood ControlStorage. The sentence stating that the Bumping Lake Enlargement projectappears to be the only new feasible storage project in the Yakima River3asin should be deleted since preliminary evaluations of other storagesites within the basin show favorable results.

Response: This section has been revised.

Comment: Flood-Plain Management with Additional Upstream Storage.Delete sentence indicating no additional multipurpose reservoirs appearfeasible.

Response: Sections covering storage reservoirs have been revised.

9.09 U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Mines.

Comment: Aspects of geology, mineral, and borrow sites are adequatelycovered in the environmental statement. The project should not adverselyaffect mineral development.

Response: Noted.

59

r .. .. . .. .. . . . . ... . . .

. .-

9.10 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service.

Comment: We feel the report adequately addresses all situations, with

the exception of the effect of the proposed action on prime and unique

farmlands. (The letter provided information on prime and unique farm-lands within the project area.)

Response: Information supplied by the Soil Conservation Service has

been included in paragraphs 2.18 and 4.21.

9.11 U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Comment: Although we anticipate no direct impact on anadromous fish

spawning areas with the proposed project, more attention should be given

to the timing of any instream work, since many of the anadromous species

currently found in the Yakima system migrate through the project area.

All instream work should be done during the lowest flow periods in theYakima River system. Instream work during migration periods will irlhibitmigration of anadromous fish and have an adverse impact on the Indianfishery which occurs immediately below the project area on Wapato and

Sunnyside Irrigation Diversion Dams.

Response: Paragraph 4.08 has been revised to include this concern.

Comment: Outdoor Recreation - General Area. In this paragraph, coho

salmon should also be added to the list of anadromous fish found in theYakima Basin.

Response: Paragraph 2.28 h, s been changed to include this.

Comment: Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood Control

Storage. This paragraph should also mention that 324,000 acre-feet of

water will be stored in enlarged Bumping Lake for fish enhancement flowsin the Yakima River system.

Response: Paragraph 2.70 has been revised to include the fact that

increased storage would provide enhancement flows for fish.

Comment: Water Quality. Another very significant problem encountered

by anadromous fish in the Yakima system is their inability to migrate due

to poor passage conditions at the existing diversion dams and the prac-

tices of diverting too much water for irrigation and power in the Yakima

system, particularly below Sunnyside and Prosser Dams. Also, the Bumping

Lake Enlargement Project does not have dilution of pollution as a project

purpose. Much of the flows proposed for the Yakima system from Bumping

Lake Enlargement are for spawning, rearing, and migration of fish.

60

7 6i

Response: Paragraph 2.75 has been revised; dilution of pollution hasbeen removed.

Coment: Fish. It should be mentioned that the Ip000 fall chinookwhich currently enter the Yakima River system spawn primarilybelow the Chandler Powerhouse in the Yakima River and would not migratepast the project area.

Response: Paragraph 2.83 has been changed to include this.

Comuent: Short-Term Fish Impacts. It should be mentioned here thatshort-term impacts can be severe on the anadromous fish resources andIndian fisheries if construction occurs during the migration of anadro-mous fish.

Response: Paragraph 4.08 has been changed to include this.

9.12 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Comment: The Advisory Council has determined that the draft environ-mental statement demonstrates compliance with Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act of 1966 prior to its amendment on September 28,1976, but that it does not demonstrate compliance with Section 106, asamended (90 Stat. 1320). However, it appears that the Corps of Engineersrecognizes its responsibilities pursuant to Section 106, as amended, andwill carry them out in the future.

Response: Noted.

Comment: The Corps of Engineers is reminded that should future sur-veys identify cultural properties eligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister of Historic Places which will be affected by the undertaking, itmust afford the council an opportunity to comment pursuant to the "Pro-cedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36C.F.R. Part 800), prior to taking any further action with respect to theundertaking which will affect the cultural properties.

Response: Noted.

9.13 Washington State Department of Ecology.

Comment: We feel that maintenance of the levees is an importantaspect of this proposal. We would like to have some assurance that aregular program of inspection and maintenance would be carried out.

Response: An operations and maintenance manual will be preparedfoloinigcompletion of the project for use by local interests. Thiswill be an extension of the existing program being carried out by YakimaCounty for the 1948 project.

61

Comment: Only brief mention is made of the possibility of recrea-tioral use of this facility. The direct benefits of this publicly fin-anced project could be expanded to more individuals by incorporatingrecreational facilities in the project.

Response: The incorporation of recreational facilities in the leveeproject was explored in detail; however, a necessary element is a localsponsor willing to share 50 percent of the recreational cost. To date,the local sponsors have expressed no interest in cost-sharing for recrea-tional facilities.

Comment: In addition to the comments by this Department, we havegathered comments from other concerned state agencies. The WashingtonState Department of Fisheries has stated that levees will prevent loss ofdownstream anadromous migrants from stranding as floodflows recede.

Response: Paragraph 4.43 has been revised to include this.

Comment: The Department of Fisheries would like to review construc-tion plans and procedures to determine that there will be no detriment tothe fishery resource.

Response: We would coordinate construction plans and procedures withthe Department of Fisheries throughout post-authorization planning andconstruction.

Comment: The proposed project is within Yakima Sportsman State Park.The Parks and Recreation Commission staff is concerned about the dike onthe east bank of the Yakima River. The aesthetic quality of the park maybe adversely affected by loss of vegetation. They feel a jointly devel-oped landscape plan would be important prior to construction. Thedetailed comments from parks and recreation are attached.

Response: Some minor brush and tree removal will be required. How-ever, the substantial growth of tall trees and brush lying between thetoe of the levee and the developed park area should adequately screen theview of the levees. During preconstruction planning, a jointly developedlandscape plan will be made.

Comment: The Department of Natural Resources states that the reportdoes not mention where the levee material will be obtained. Our RiverManagement Policy Plan does not favor removal of material from thestreambed for such purposes.

Response: Paragraph 1.29 mentions the likely borrow sources.

9.14 Washington State Department of Transportation.

Comment: We have no objections to the basic content of the document

62

and have no comments on the project from the Moxee Bridge north.

Response: Noted.

Commient: South of the Moxee Bridge, the river channel location is ina constant state of change. It is very likely in a few years the mainforce of the river may be directed against a section of 1-82 that is notbeing riprapped under this project. The existing training dike near thenorthern Spring Creek culvert may, under the 100-year flood condition,actually tend to force the water along 1-82 and increase the erosionpotential along the highway. The draft EIS does not address itself tothis problem.

Response: During large floods, water will flow between 1-82 and theremaining portion of dike located near the upper Spring Creek culvert andwill continue flowing downstream parallel to the highway. However, thevelocities of the overbank flow should be low enough to preclude signifi-cant damage to the highway embankment. Hydraulic design is covered inthe feasibility report.

Comment: We feel the riprap section Type X shown on plate 6 is toothin. Normally our standards would require 2 feet or even 3 feet ofdepth, with an additional 1 foot of filter material. It may be that thenature of the 1-82 embankment is such that the filter blanket may beomitted, but it should still be considered.

Response: A review was made of the riprap design and the conclusionreached that the Type X riprap section will satisfactorily protect 1-82.During post-authorization studies, design will be reviewed again in lightof conditions existing at that time.

9.15 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

Comment: It is our understanding that the dike through the YakimaSportsman State Park will be raised 2 to 3 feet vertically, which willcause a 10- to 15-foot horizontal increase measured at the toe of thedike and that the width increase will occur on the inboard or park sideof the dike.

Response: A field check by Corps of Engineers' personnel in February1977 and review of levee design profiles revealed that, en average, liftof only about 0.7 feet will be required in the park area to bring thelevee top to grade. Maximum lift will only be 1.5 feet. The averagehorizontal increase then will only be about 4 feet.

Coment: We request that the width increase be on the outboard orrive-rside of the dike. We would definitely be opposed to removing theexisting trees and shrubs on the park side of the levee. That vegetationadds a substantial aesthetic quality to the park.

63

Response: A width increase on the river side of the dike would bemuch more expensive than an increase on the landward side. Also, anincrease on the river side would tend to constrict the channel, andconstruction within the river would have temporary impacts on waterquality.

Coients We request that all work shall be done from the top of thedik7e, wth no equipment operating on or across nondike lands.

Response: All construction will be done from top of levee or from10-foot construction easement adjacent to levee toe.

Comment: We request that a land survey be carried out by the Corps of

Engineers to mark the dike easement boundaries prior to construction.

Response: This will be done.

Coent: If the width increase must be on the landward side of thedike, we request that a landscape plan agreeable to State Parks and theCorps of Engineers be jointly prepared prior to construction. The land-scape plan should consider, at a minimum, the following items:

(1) Drainage system with inlets and lawn.

(2) Stream water source and development.

(3) Variable levee slopes in order to break up the monotonous appear-ance and steepness.

(4) Planting of ornamental trees to improve tree quality.

(5) Improve shrub planting to improve quality and wildlife habitat.

(6) Assurance that the soil quality will support the landscape plant-ings as well as the erosion control grasses.

Response: A jointly prepared landscape plan for the levee in the parkwill be developed during preconstruction planning.

Comment: State Parks also have several questions that can't be ans-wered from Corps of Engineers' documents presently in hand. One questionconcerns a culvert under the levee with a headgate on the river sidewhich supplies water to a stream which flows through the park. This isan established stream with high recreation and aesthetic value and isessential to the park. Will this structure be maintained or eliminated?

Response: The existing culvert will be retained.

64

Comment: At the base of the existing levee fill, there is a drainageditch which normally has water in it. If this ditch is to be relocated,the lawn area will be lost. It appears a tile drain system with surfaceinlets could be installed in place of the ditch.

Response: The tile drain will be considered. Design details will beworked out at a later date. If possible, no lawn area will be lost.

Comment: A large rock pile exists adjacent to the dike. It would beuseful to parks if it were removed. Can it be used in the new leveeconstruction?

Response: This is a design detail that must be developed later. Therock pile will be used for levee construction if it is suitable material.

Comment: I am confident that this levee can be built to provideneeded flood protection and can also protect and preserve the amenitiesof the public recreation area.

Response: Noted.

Note: We believe our reponses to this letter of 11 February 1977 alsoaddresses the concerns expressed in the State Parks' letter of 4 March1977. Both letters are in appendix F.

9.16 Yakima County Clean Air Authority.

Comment: We agree with the conclusion that the only foreseeable airquality problems which might arise from construction of the levees arerelated to the construction period and can easily be abated.

Response: Noted.

Comment: In the interest of accuracy, we believe the reference to agravel pit operation near Granger has no relevance to the project areaair quality. This particular source is not considered a major source,and we note that the location is southeast rather than southwest ofYakima.

Response: Paragraph 2.52 has been revised to eliminate reference tothe Granger gravel pit.

Comment: Air Quality - Project Area. The list of sources should beexpanded to include an asphalt batch plant located in the flood plain onproperty adjacent to the gravel-crushing operation mentionedin the draft EIS.

Response: Paragraph 2.53 has been revised to include this.

65

9.17 Associated Students, University of Washington.

Coment: Several times the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is noted ascontributIng recommendations under consideration. What are these recom-mendations? How would they affect the environment or the outcome of theproject? We support the interactions involved, but feel the resultsshould be included for adequate public review.

Response: Paragraphs 1.09, 1.13, and 1.22 have been revised, and allmention of "recommendations under consideration" have been deleted. Someof the landscaping ideas presented in section 1 were recomendations bythe Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comment: What is the impact of the excavation needed for the leftbank i urovement?

Response: Excavation impacts would include adverse short-term impactsto water quality and both short-term and long-term adverse impacts tovegetation, wildlife, fish, and aesthetics. The impacts of all the leveesections are discussed collectively throughout section 4.

Comment: Project Description. Why are the backfill quantities lessthan the excavation quantities?

Response: This is because buried riprap is placed in the excavatedsections, and the remaining excavation area is filled with earth.

Comment: Appendix F of the Feasibility Report should have beenincluded in the draft EIS. We understand that this is a revised version,but to omit the benefit-cost analysis seems inappropriate. It is impos-sible to accurately assess the economic outlay of the project with theinformation provided. What are the project costs based on? How were thefigures arrived at?

Response% We disagree. It is more appropriate to append the detaileddiscussion of the benefit-cost analysis to the feasibility report ratherthan the environmental impact statement. Anyone wishing to obtain eitherappendix F or the entire Yakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction StudyInterim Report (the feasibility report) may request such from the SeattleDistrict.

Comment: How long will construction last?

Response: Paragraph 1.06 states that project construction would take15 months.

Comment: On what do you base your statement, "alleviation of localunemployment would constitute a benefit to the local area and nationaleconomies?"

66

Response: Statement is based on common assumption of benefits fromincrease in employment.

Comment: What economic impact will occur when construction is com-pleted? Will there be any permanent jobs created? If so, we hope localpeople will be used to fill these spots.

Response: There will be economic benefits because of increased floodprotection. Long-term economic impacts are covered by paragraphs 4.17 to4.25. No permanent jobs will be created by the levee itself.

Comment: Table 1. What are the project costs based on?

Response: Basis for project costs is covered in more detail in appen-dix F of main feasibility report.

Comment: Population Projections. On what do you base your statement,"should the project be authorized and completed, the area would probablyretain its agricultural zoning with only a small increase in the numberof homes and mobile homes?"

Response: Prom discussions with the Principal County Planner (seeparagraph 4.32).

Comment: Rave 100-year and 200-year flood determinations been estab-lished subsequent to Bureau of Reclamation storage facilities?

Response: Yes.

Comment: Since levees will interrupt the natural reservoir action ofa flood plain, flooding downstream can be expected to increase. Howlarge would damages downstream be from this phenomenon, and if they werenot included in the benefit-cost analysis, why?

Response: As stated in paragraph 4.22, the new levees and leveeimprovements would not be expected to increase impacts to any upstream ordownstream lands.

Coment: Floods and Flood Damage. What is "significant damage?"How did you arrive at these figures?

Response: "Significant damage" refers to the flood level where damageis measurable. The discharges that cause measurable damage were based ondata from past floods and hydraulic calculations.

Coment: Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood ControlStorage. What would be the consequences if the Bumping Lake proposal isnot activated?

67

Response: Yakima levee project is designed for the present conditionwithout Bumping Lake Enlargement. Failure to enlarge Bumping Lake wouldhave no effect on levee project.

Coent: Section 101(b)2 of the National Environmental Policy Actpoints out the need for culturally pleasing as well as productive sur-roundings. This is certainly a difficult task to bear; however, itappears nothing has been done to further the possibility of important andvaluable archeological findings since April 8, 1974. Has funding beensought since then? If not, why?

Response: As stated in paragraph 2.89, a cultural resources investi-gation of selected portions of the proposed new levee alinement wasconducted by the Corps of Engineers during the fall of 1975. This inves-tigation did not reveal any prehistoric or historic sites within the areaof survey.

Coment: If any prehistoric or historic sites are found on the pro-ject site, how would it affect the project? Would excavation beallowed? The investigation in Appendix E indicates a strong possibilitythat cultural artifacts do exist at the site.

Response: As indicated within the EIS, a cultural resources surveywould be undertaken after project authorization by Congress. The surveywould assess the total number of sites to be affected, their temporal andfunctional character, and their importance to prehistory and history ofthe Pacific Northwest. If cultural resource sites which meet the cri-teria for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places arefound in the direct impact area, the levee would either be realined toprevent their destruction or they would be excavated by professionalarcheologists to preserve their historic or prehistoric information.Salvage of these significant sites would occur prior to construction.However, in the event that cultural sites are found during construction,a cultural resource specialist would be contacted immediately, and asalvage program would be undertaken.

Coament: Relationship to the Existing Shoreline Management Act. Thelevees, which will be within 200 feet of O.H.W., do not provi-le publicaccess to the river and alter the existing character of th . a. Why isthe levee not in conflict with conservancy designation *e . tivitiesand uses of a nonperson nature which do not substantie , leg. ' theexisting character of an area" (Department of Ecology guidelines)-arefavored?

Response: Shouldn't the quote from Department of Ecology guidelinesread "nonpermanent" nature instead of "nonperson" nature? Where thelevees abut the river, they would provide public access to the river. Ingeneral, the levees would provide access to an area which is not nowavailable to the public. As stated in our paragraph 3.03, we believe therehabilitation of the existing levees and the construction of new levees

68

generally set back from the river channel should not be in conflict withthe conservancy shoreline designation.

Comment: Alternatives - The "Do Nothing" Alternative. How was thefigure W.65,900 arrived at?

Response: Detailed economic analysis can be found in appendix F of

the main report.

Comment: How "substantial" are existing flood problems?

Response: Paragraphs 2.58 to 2.61 present information on historicfloods within the general and project area.

Coment: We support the Army Corps of Engineers' decision not toenlarge the reservoir system.

Response: It does not appear that more reservoirs within the Yakimadrainage system could effectively control flooding near the city ofYakima.

Comment: Rare and Endangered Species. Will the habitat of the "rarebutterfly" be altered? We feel this deserves more attention than it hasreceived. We support the consultation with the Department of Game but donot see any time spent to mitigate a potential problem. It the areareferred to the Moxee Bog? Will the hydrology affect the area?

Response: Paragraph 4.44 has been revised to include a brief discus-sion of the 14-acre sphagnum bog (known as the Moxee Bog) which is thehabitat of a rare butterfly. We would not expect that project construc-tion would adversely impact this bog.

9.18 Robert C. Card.

Comment: I would like to commend the Corps of Engineers for preparingwhat appears to be a thoughtful and objective KIS. The format usedgreatly facilitated my review, which included the entire statement indetail. I approached the review as an environmental engineer and acitizen of the community concerned for its social and economic welfare.

Response: Noted.

Comment: There was no mention in the statement about possible down-stream impacts of the project either with the normal flows or the projectdesign floodflows of the Yakima River. The potential impacts of thistype of project are increased aggradation or degradation of the down-stream river bed and increases in the magnitude of floodflows experiencedby the lower Yakima Valley. While, in this case, these impacts may besmall, I still think that the potentially affected population deserves tohear the Corps of Engineers' position on this subject.

69

Response: Paragraph 4.22 states that the project would cause nosignificant adverse impacts to any upstream or downstream flood-plainlands.

Comment: Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Levees and Chan-nels. Several other possible levee projects in the drainage basin arementioned. However, there are no statements in the EIS describing thebroad potential impacts of the whole system and the Yakima-Union pro-ject's contribution to these impacts. For example, the proposed pro-ject's impact on anadromous fish may be small as the river exists todaybut large if the whole levee system is built. Comments in the final EISaddressing these issues would help avoid piecemeal environmental degrada-tion due to a lack of understanding of the overall program.

Response: As stated in paragraph 2.72, it is impossible to statewhether or not the construction of any of these levees will ever beauthorized and funded. We agree that the construction of many more leveesegments may create serious environmental impacts, such as adverseimpacts to anadromous fish.

Comment: There was no rationale given to the selection of the 100-year and 200-year return period floods as the design values. Thisselection has a major impact on the size of the project. Therefore, amention of why these values, as opposed to larger or smaller ones werechosen, would be informative.

Response: Reason for selecting 100- and 200-year level of protectionis discussed under "Plan Selection" in the feasibility report. Level ofprotection was originally chosen to maximize net benefits. However,because serious danger exists from overtopping, the degree of protectionfor the levees downstream of the Moxee bridge has been increased to thehighest level that is economically feasible - 200-year flood protection.

Comment: Short-Term Fish Impacts. This section did not mention thepotential interruption of anadromous fish runs during construction due todisturbances in the river. This impacts could be minimized by carefulproject scheduling coordinated with the Washington State Fish and GameDepartment.

Response: Paragraph 4.08 has been revised to include this.

Comment: Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species. This sectionis not specific enough in describing the impact on the peregrine falconcom unity. At a minimum, the bird's nesting site(s) and routine travelpatterns (if any) should be identified. If this is done, then ornitholo-gists could more objectively describe the impacts on the project's short-term or long-term effects on the bird's behavior.

70

-i

Response: Conversations with the Fish and Wildlife Service have

revealed that there are no falcon nesting sites near the project area,and the bird is not commonly seen within the area. There is no reason tobelieve this project would have either significant short- or long-termeffects on the bird's behavior.

Comment: Long-Term Economic and Social Impacts. This section did not

mention social costs associated with the project. The river has a poten-tial for becoming a focal point of day-to-day community recreational

activity. It is particularly valuable in this respect due to its proxi-mity to low-income neighborhoods. Many of these people do not have the

resources to travel to find recreation, so anything that hinders their

access to the river should be considered in that light. Both good and

harmful effects in this regard were alluded to elsewhere in the state-ment. However, a statement in this paragraph summarizing the project's

impact on the public's future access to, and enjoyment of, the river

would be valuable to the local sponsor and other concerned citizens.

Response: We believe this subject is more appropriate under our

"Long-Term Outdoor Recreation Impacts" paragraph (4.29). This paragraphstates that we assume the levees would be open to the public and would

create access to an area which is presently closed to the public. Thelevees could be used for short hikes or nature observation.

Comment: Impacts on Unprotected Land. This section did not describeeither the additional loss to land owners due to changes in channeliza-

tion or changes in flood characteristics (e.g. sediment transport) due to

unprotected land across the river from Union Gap.

Response: The levees would cause no additional loss to unprotected

land.

Comment: Also, there may be a cost associated with poorer access to

the land inside the levees and a reduction in property values. These

costs, if they exist, should be included in the benefit-cost analysis.

Response: We anticipate no additional cost or loss of property value

to unprotected land.

Comment: The possible changes in flood characteristics may also have

long-term impacts on the biotic community.

Response: The levee is not expected to significantly change flood

characteristics.

Comment: Borrow Site Impacts. This section describes the impacts of

expanding borrow pits as "minimal or insignificant." The excavation of

208,700 cubic yards of earth material will leave a 13- acre, 10-foot-deephole. If the site is near a city, as stated, it is difficult to see howthis comprises a minimal impact. Most people experiencing the noise and

71

dust from gravel excavating and processing operation would describe it ashighly negative.

Response: At least three borrow sources may be used, chosen fromexisting borrow sites or sites that will have minimum adverse impact.

Comment: Much of the proposed levee protecting the Yakima WastewaterTreatment Plant involves excavation and/or backfill in the river. Wasthe less environmentally damaging and perhaps less costly alternative ofa more localized levee around the plant itself examined? I think that anargument for or against this proposal should be presented in the finalstatement.

Response: The entire spray irrigation field needs to be protected;thus a more localized levee around the plant itself is not a viablealternative.

Comment: Project Area Services. I wish to note here that the Keithand Keith Funeral Chapel (see paragraph 2.26) is a recent structure thatwas approved by the County with full knowledge of its position on theflood plain. Including damage reduction for this facility as a benefithas the effect of allowing the owner and county to cover up unwise flood-plain management. Using this type of practice, any Federal flood controlproject can eventually be justified from a benefit-cost perspective. Ifthe current benefit-cost ratio is less than one, all that the county hasto do is allow building in the flood plain until the benefit of protect-ing the new construction exceeds the cost of the flood control project.

Response: Noted.

Comment: Employment and the Labor Force. The statement in paragraph4.12 about the 2,000 unemployed agricultural workers is misleading. Manyother local, union-protected, construction workers are typically out ofwork during the winter. Therefore, if there is levee construction duringthe winter, it is highly unlikely that any significant number of theseagricultural workers will be employed on the project.

Response: Most of the project work force will be union workers.Agricultural workers provide an additional source to draw on, if neces-sary.

Comment: Table 1, Project Costs. The costs of operation and mainten-ance listed in the table do not conform to historical data. In the past,Yakima County has spent several thousand dollars annually on levee main-tenance. This money was spent primarily on brush clearing through thecounty's student summer employment program. I suggest that the Corps ofEngineers obtain historical data from the county and revise its costfigures accordingly.

72

Response: The listed cost is in addition to current cost.

Comment: Project Economics. The benefit-cost analysis is weak inthat the criteria for estimating costs is not explained, and environ-mental costs as recognized in the statement were not quantified andincluded. This section of the statement is probably one of the mostimportant and debatable, but it is one of the sections least reinforcedby presentations of data and methodology. Having some experience in costestimating, I know that the criteria and assumptions used are often quitesubjective. Therefore, I think that at least a cursory summary of yourprocedure would be appropriately included in the final stacement.

Response: We believe that it is more appropriate to append thedetailed discussions of the benefit-cost analysis to the feasibilityreport rather than the EIS. Anyone wishing to obtain either appendix For the entire Yakima-Uuion Gap Flood Damage Reduction Study InterimReport (the feasibility report) may request such from the Seattle Dis-trict. As soon as it is prepared, we will send you the final report inhopes that it will answer your questions on our benefit-cost analysis.Also, table 1 of the Revised Draft EIS now i.acludes an estimate of fishand wildlife losses.

Comment: Paragraph 2.02, line 5 should read "... Between 1970 and

Response: Correction in text has been made.

Comment: The 24-inch-diameter line as shown on plate 5, when comparedwith plate 3, does not correspond to the functional description given inparagraph 1.19. As shown, the inlet is not above the 100-year floodlevel.

Response: Correction in text has been made.

9.19 Coments and Responses on Revised Draft Statement: In December1978 the revised draft environmental impact statement was sent to YakimaCounty, the State of Washington and Federal agencies at the Washington,D.C. level. All comments received which are relevant to the reviseddraft EIS Are shown below, and copies of all letters received are shownin appendix G.

9.20 U. Environmental Protection Agency.

Comment: We feel that the project changes covered in the revisedstatement will not greatly influence the environmental impacts of theproject.

Response: Noted.

73

Comment: The effects of increased cost-sharing recommended under thePresident a new water resources policy are not addressed in the revisedstatement.

Response: Section 1.38 has been added to include this.

Comment: We support the Corps of Engineers plan to work closely withthe U.S. ish and Wildlife Service and the state conservation agenciesduring the post-authorization planning.

Response: Noted.

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency has rated this draftenvironmental statement LO-1 (LO - Lack of Objections; 1 - Adequate

Information). The rating will be published in the Federal Register inaccordance with our responsibility to inform the publ1c of our views onproposed Federal actions under section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Response: Noted.

9.21 U.S. Department of the Interior.

Comment: Our field review indicated that the modification (recom-mended by the Board of Engineers of Rivers and Harbors) would amount to asignificant increase in previously identified fish and wildlife lossesand that a reanalysis of fish and wildlife aspects would be required. Bya letter dated October 4, 1978, to the District Engineer, our Fish andWildlife Service recommended, among other things, that we be given theopportunity during the post-authorization phase (advanced engineering anddesign) to reassess fish/wildlife losses and to develop a new and morecomprehensive habitat restoration plan. We understand that, if theproject is authorized, the Corps will make every opportunity available toaccomplish our recommendations during the post-authorization phase.

Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service will be given the oppor-tunity during the post-authorization phase to reassess fish and wildlifelosses and to develop a new and more comprehensive habitat restorationplan.

Comment: It should be recognized, depending on final levee details

developed in the design phase, that the $117,000 habitat restorationcost, identified in paragraph 18 of the Board's Report, may be too low.

Response: Noted.

Comment: It is important to note that setback features of the levees

are highly important and the Fish and Wildlife Service will insist onthese features to protect wildlife values.

74

Response: Noted.

Comment: The revised draft statement does not note that the StateHistoric Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted regarding cul-tural resources; however, a letter from the SHPO is included in AppendixK.

Response: The final EIS has been changed (Section 2.88) to statethat the SHPO was consulted regarding cultural resources.

Comment: We recomend that if artifactual material is encounteredduring construction, the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preser-vation should be contacted for consideration of an archaeological salvageprogram.

Response: The final EIS has been changed (Section 4.45) to statethat all items having any apparent archaeological interest discoveredduring any construction activities shall be carefully preserved. Thecontractor shall leave the archeological find undisturbed and shallimmediately report the finding to the contracting officer. The StateOffice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation would be contacted by theCorps, and informed of the find and the Corps' salvage program.

Comment: Local officials have recently expressed interest in dis-cussing the possibility of cost sharing in the development of a system oftrails along the proposed project levees. We believe the revised draftenvironmental impact statement should be expanded to reflect this newpossibility for use of project resources.

Response: During plan formulation stages of the feasibility reportlocal interests were not prepared to enter into agreements with the Corpsfor any recreation features. Recreation (including trails) will bereconsidered during the post-authorization phase.

Comment: The reasons for the Fish and Wildlife Service no longerhaving confidence in previous estimates of angler days are due to lateCorps project changes, change in habitat use and value, and to anincreased demand for consumptive and non-consumptive fish and wildlifeoriented recreation.

Response: The reasons for the Fish and Wildlife Service no longerhaving confidence in previous estimates of angler days have been includedin the final E1S (Sectin 4.43).

Comment: The bald eagle has been given official threatened status inthe State of Wasington since publication of the Corps' feasibility reportand revised draft EIS. Some birds have been observed occasionally withinthe project area.

Response: The final environmental impact statement has been changed(Sectioin2.85) to include this information.

75

Comment: Because the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon use theproject site, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Actshould be initiated immediately.

Response: At this point in the processing of this feasibilityreport, w do not believe it would be appropriate to expend time andfunds on formal consultation. If Congress authorizes this project andappropriates funds, the Corps of Engineers will conduct a biologicalassessment in accordance with the Endangered Species Act during thepre-construction planning phase. If the assessment finds that adverseimpacts may occur, the consultation process will be initiated and anyproblems resolved before construction is initiated.

9.22 U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Comment: Recommendations by the Board of Engineers for Rivers andHarbors, including higher level of protection of a portion of the floodplain, would raise first project cost to $5,168,000 and result in abenefit ratio of 1.6. Changes in cost sharing provisions to conform torequirements under current policy would raise the non-Federal contribu-tion to the first costs of project installation to 25 percent.

Response: The final environmental impact statement will reflect theproject modifications recommended by the Board of Engineers for Riversand Harbors and will note the results of application of the President'sproposed cost-sharing policy to the project (See Section 1.38).

Comment: It would appear appropriate that Table 4 on page 20 of thedraft EIS include the many acres of meandering river and associatedwildlife lands (photo on page 27 of interim report).

Response: There are several hundred acres of meandering river andassociated wildlife lands (islands and gravel bars) in between the rightand left banks. This information has been added to Table 4 as a footnote.

Comnent: We appreciate your including Soil Conservation Service'scomments to a previous draft and hope these comments are helpful.

Response: Noted. They were helpful.

9.23 U.S. Department of Commerce.

Coment: The Department of Commerce has reviewed your proposedreport on the Yakima-Union Gap, Washington together with the interimreport concerning flood damage reduction in the Yakima River basin. Wehave no substantive comments to make on these documents.

Response: Noted.

76

r4

9.24 U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard.

Coment: On behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation the con-cerned operating administrations and staff of the U.S. Coast Guard havereviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Yakima-Union Gap Interim Report, Flood Damage Reduction. We have neither cam-ments nor objections to offer regarding this proposal.

Response: Noted.

9.25 U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

No comments.

9.26 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Comment: We have no constructive comments to offer.

Response: Noted.

9.27 Washington State Department of Ecology.

Comment: The State of Washington strongly supports the proposedproject and looks forward to working with the Corps of Engineers duringthe post-authorization phase.

Response: Noted.

Comment: We do wish to express our great concerns over the applica-tion of the President's proposed cost-sharing policy at this advancedstage of project planning.

Response: Noted.

Comment: State agencies have some additional information and con-cerns which are outlined below for your information and consideration.

Response: Noted. (The comments of the State Department of Transpor-tation, Parke and Recreation Commission, Department of Fisheries, Depart-ment of Game, and Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation followaccompanied by Corps of Engineers responses to each comment).

9.28 Washington State Department of Transportation.

Comment: We have reviewed the subject document and are in support ofthe proposed project because it will preserve the structural integrity ofthe Interstate Highway roadway.

Response: Noted.

77

Coment: The Department, in our letter dated February 16, 1977,expressed some concern regarding the depth of rip rap to be placed on theroadway slopes. The Department cannot recomend approval of constructionplans until our hydraulics section can review design computations.

Response: Construction plans will be prepared during postauthoriza-tion planning (i.e., following authorization by Congress). Designdetails concerning 1-82 will be fully coordinated with the State Depart-ment of Transportation during post-authorization studies.

Coiment: The Department is planning to improve SR 82 by constructionof a connection to SR 97 in the vicinity of Union Gap. This proposedimprovement will fall within the limits of the subject proposal. Theproposed highway project is not shown on any of the maps or plans in thedocument. Attached for the Corps information are plans of the plannedhighway improvement.

Response: The proposed highway project will be shown and consideredin any future post-authorization study documents for the project.

Comment: Any references to the State Highway Department should bechanged to the Washington State Department of Transportation.

Response: The Final EIS has been changed.

9.29 Washington State Parks and Recreation Comission.

Comment: I have reviewed the above noted documents and find thatthey do not contain a detailed evaluation of the application of EngineerManual EM 1110-2-301, "LANDSCAPE PLANTING AT FLOODWALLS, LEVEES ANDEBAW1=NT DAMS.

Response: The manual was used during planning of the project. Toreduce the size of our report and EIS, we did not include a detailedevaluation of the use of this manual.

Comment: I have reviewed the above noted documents and find that noreasonable means to adequately landscape the dike within Yakima SportsmanState Park is available. Only plantings of various grasses appear to bepossible given the parameters spelled out in the Interim Report and DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement. Therefore, any mutually prepared land-scape plan prepared by Parks and the Corps during the "post-authorizationplanning" stage (detailed planning) cannot include schemes utilizinggroupings of trees and shrubs if the Interim Report and Revised DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement are not revised.

If there is to be no allowance for tree and shrub planting on the inboardface of the dike within Yakima Sportsman State Park, then please make itclear in the Interim Report and Environmental Statements that any "joint

78

A-"

landscape plan" prepared by Corps and Parks in the future will be consi-dered within extremely limited parameters that were established unilater-ally by the Corps without the concurrence of Parks and that the narrowparameters preclude the possibility of trees and shrub planting.

Response: If the levees are built as described in the Revised DraftBig (that is, if the levees are not overbuilt), some plantings of treesand shrubs would be possible landward of the levees, but no plantingswould be possible on the levees themselves. However, during post-authorization planning, overbuilt levees, or sections of overbuilt lev-ees, will be considered. Overbuilt levees would make possible plantingsof trees and shrubs on the levees themselves. If overbuilt levees arefound to be economically feasible, if the local sponsor is willing toincur the higher costs associated with the levees, and if they aredesired by the public and concerned agencies, it is reasonable to assumethat overbuilt levees would be recommended at least for sections of theState Park. The Final EIS (Section 1.09) has been changed to state thatoverbuilt levees will be considered in post-authorization planning.

Cont: Further, please understand that it is the judgment of theprofessional planning staff of state parks, the owner and public recrea-tion manager of the land, that the failure to plant trees and shrubs onthe inboard dike face will result in severe esthetic degradation withinthe Yakima Sportsman State Park.

Response: This comment has been added to Section 4.26 "Long-TermEsthetic Impacts" in the EIS. We will work closely with the State Parksand Recreation Commission to explore all acceptable measures to preventesthetic degradation.

9.30 Washington State Depart ent of Fisheries.

Coment: We have reviewed the draft EIS for the Yakima-Union CapFlood Damage Reduction Study and find that the project will have noapparent significant detrimental impacts on the salmon resource.

Response: Noted.

Cosment: Any work which will actually be performed in the riverwill, of course, require a Hydraulic Permit.

Response: Noted.

9.31 Washington State Department of Game.

Coment: pp 7-1.32. Removal of burrowing animals is not discussedbeyond this section. In most instances these would be furbearers such asmuskrats. How will these be taken, and by whom? Will losses of theseanimals be mitigated?

79

Response: Maintenance of the levees would be the responsibility ofthe sponsor, Yakima County. If burrowing animals threaten the stabilityof the levees, the animals should be removed by the sponsor. If thelevees are maintained properly, the necessity to remove burrowing animalsshould be a rare occurrence and not require mitigation. There presentlydoes not appear to be a problem with burrowing animals in the existinglevees.

Comment: pp 10 - Table 1. We wondered how the figure of 44,200 ayear T-itigated fish and wildlife costs was derived. How many ani-mals are involved? We would like to point out that fish and wildlifeincrease dramatically in value as they become more scarce.

Response: The $4,200 annual cost of unmitigated fish and wildlifeimpacts was derived as follows:

The U.S. Fish and Wildilfe Service's estimate of annual hunter-daylosses (140), angler-day losses (350), and losses to nonconsumptivewildlife recreation (400) were multiplied by day use values obtained fromPrinciples and Standards ($9 per day, $6 per day, and $2 per day, respec-tively). Thus, 140 x 9 + 350 x 6 + 400 x 2 - $4,160, which rounds up to$4,200 per year.

We recognize there are some concerns with this approach: (1) TheProject has changed somewhat since the man-day losses were estimated bythe Fish and Wildlife Service and need to be updated, (2) the per daycosts taken from Principles and Standards dates back to 1973, and need tobe based on the recently published revised Principles and Standards, and(3) the $4,200 estimate does not take into account the future mitigatingimpact of Corps-planted trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses in the projectarea. During post-authorization planning the physical and monetaryimpacts of the recommended plan will be reanalyzed.

Comment: pp 16-2.29. A fourth area important to hunters, whichwould be impacted by the proposal, is Moxee Game Reserve. It holds duckpopulations which contribute about 12,000 waterfowl to the Yakima Countytotal harvest of between 60,000 to 100,000 waterfowl yearly. The approx-imately 12,000 waterfowl contributed to this total from Hoxee Reserveindicate about 10,000 man/days of hunting, worth about $261,000 economi-cally, based on direct spending.

Response: This comment has been added to the final IS(Section 2.29).

Coument: pp 30-2.79. This riparian bottomland habitat may be des-cribed as unique in Yakima County.

Response: The project site riparian bottomland is very important forwildlif~ein Yakima County but it does not seem unique to us. Similarhabitat can be found along other sections of the Yakima River in YakimaCounty.

80

!A

Comment: pp 33-3.03. You state rehabilitation of existing levees,and construction of new levees set back from the river channel, shouldnot be in conflict with the county's designation as "conservancy" in itsshoreline master program, which includes most of the Yakima River shore-line from Selah Gap to Union Gap. We feel this would depend greatly onthe location of the levees, proposed alternatives, and developmentencouraged by security generated by the existence of new levees.

Response: Our discussions with state and local officials have indi-cated that the proposed levee alinements are compatible with the shore-line "conservancy" category. The impact of the proposed project on allland use plans would be reviewed during post-authorization planning.

Comment: pp 37-4.16. A discussion of long-term economic and socialimpacts should address economic impacts to recreation. This can becalculated to a good degree of accuracy from man-days impacts.

Response: Section 4.29 in the EIS discusses long-term recreationimpacts. Man-day impact figures will be updated during our post-authorization planning.

Comment: pp 39-40-4.25. There are no gV.rantees that land usecontrols and restrictions will not change. Present controls do notrestrict intensification of agriculture or construction of buildings orother structures related to agriculture. Gravel mining permits are alsoavailable.

Response: This comment has been added to Section 4.25 in the finalEIS.

Comment: pp 41-4.31. This paragraph seems to sidestep the fact thatthe reason present levees are being raised, and new ones constructed, isto provide security from flood damage so more intense land use can bedeveloped.

Response: Raising the existing levees and building new ones willprotect the existing level of development. Future flood plain develop-ment with the project is not expected to differ from development withoutthe project. Continuation of local zoning regulations which prohibitresidential use of agricultural lands are expected to continue to affectnew development. Residential land use in the Yakima-Union Gap area isprojected to concentrate within the currently zoned residential areas.Flood control laws that require new developments to be flood proofed upto 100-year level do not appear to be a significant deterrent to newdevelopment in the project area. Therefore, the removal of this restric-tion with a project is not expected to induce development.

Coment: pp 41-4.31. Sections 4.17 through 4.25 discuss long-termeconomic and social benefits, but do not address the social and economic

81

costs of these actions in terms of losses of wildlife oriented outdoorrecreation.

Response: Losses of wildlife oriented outdoor recreation are discus-sed in Section 4.29, Long-Term Outdoor Recreation Impacts.

Coment: pp 41-4.34. There are no guarantees that these hundreds of

acres of flood-plain land will remain unprotected from periodic flooding,and therefore in a low state of development compatible with wildlife. Wecannot assess impacts to wildlife on this basis.

Response: We agree that there are no guarantees that the floodplain

land riverward of the levees would remain in a low state of development.

The paragraph does not suggest that there are such guarantees. However,it is logical to assume that if the levees are built, structures wouldnot be permitted to be constructed on the "wrong side" of the levees.

Comment: pp 41-4.36. Natural vegetation behind the dike will alsobe lost due to more intensive land use, both residential and agricul-tural. Benefits to wildlife habitat resulting from periodic flooding

will also be lost. These benefits include weed seed deposition, aluvialfertilization from silt deposits, insect food supplies, and protectionfor natural vegetation and space from development.

Response: We have included most of these statements (Section 4.36)

in the final EIS. However, we do not believe the project would result in

a major land use change. With or without the proposed project, webelieve that a few more homes and mobile homes would locate in the floodplain, and more intensive agriculture would be practiced.

Comment: pp 42-43-4.42. Again, this section does not address wild-life losses behind the dikes, losses from encroachment on Moxee Reserve,

or losses of burrowing animals.

Response: These possible impacts have been included in Section 4.42in the final EIS, except for losses to burrowing animals which we believe

are unlikely.

Comment: pp 48-5.04. Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be

avoided should have included impact on waterfowl, shorebirds, doves andothers from loss of flat shorelines. Mitigation proposals for dikingwill not offset losses discussed in 5.02.

Response: The impact on waterfowl, shorebirds, doves, and other

birds has been included in Section 5.04 in the final EIS. We recognize

that collectively these measures do not fully mitigate the losses.

Comment: pp 53-7.0. The productivity of this proposal assumesprotection of "private residences, businesses, agricultural lands

82

and public facilities." Project benefits are based on these features.Fish, wildlife, recreation and water quality costs were not measuredagainst these benefits because of present zoning restrictions, but thebenefits cannot accrue without assessing these environmental costs ofdevelopment, which result from the security of improved and expandedlevees.

Response: We have added a paragraph in Chapter 7.0 stating thaturbanization of the floodplain may adversely impact fish, wildlife,recreation, and water quality. However, based on discussions with theCounty Planner, it seems likely that the rural areas protected by theproposed project would, in the long-term, remain rural. Residential landuse in the Yakima-Union Gap area is projected to concentrate within thecurrently zoned residential areas resulting in a higher density residen-tial use.

Comment: The possibility that the utility of Moxee Reserve would belost if it were converted from wet pasture to row cropping was not add-ressed, nor was the cost of waterfowl depredation. This depredationcould occur if row cropping or other more intensive agriculture replacedwet pasture in all or part of Moxee Reserve or other areas on the affec-ted flood plain.

Response: The final EIS now discusses the possibility that theutility of the Moxee Reserve would be lost if it were converted from wetpasture to row cropping (Section 4.42).

9.32 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Comment: A staff review of items 2.85-2.89 and 4.45 regarding cul-tural resources has been completed. We concur with the proposal toconduct a comprehensive prehistoric and historic resources survey of theproject area. The potential for the presence of cultural resources inthe area has been quite adequately recognized and addressed.

Response: -Noted.

9.33 Yakima County, Washington, Board of County Commissioners.

Comment: The Board of Yakima County Commissioners wishes to adviseyou that we fully support the Yakima-Union Gap Levee Project.

Response: Noted.

Comment: Yakima County is willing to participate in the project andprovide all necessary items of local sponsorship as required by congres-sional legislation. We understand that the President's cost-sharingproposal is under consideration but would require congressional enactmentbefore any modifications would be made to our previously agreed upon

83

sponsorship. IL must be noted that such enactment would have the effect

of making our further sponsorship impossible.

Response: Noted.

84

APPENDIX A

PRINCIPAL NATIVE AQUATIC AND

TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION

.... I

The following trees, shrubs, forbs, grassec, and aquatic plantsare found within the project area. The list was developed with theaid of the Yakima offices of the Soil Conservation Agency and theWashington Department of Game. The list is not all inclusive; numerous

other plant species probably occur along this reach of the YakimaRiver.

The following symbols are used to describe the relative abundanceof these plants within the project area:

C - common within project area

U - uncommon within project area

R - rare, probably found in only one small section of the project

area.

SPECIES (Common Name) SCIENTIFIC NAMI AhUNDANCE

Trees

Aspen Populus tremul ldeq VMountain alder Alnus tenuifoliCottonwood Populus trichoearp&

Shrubs

Red osier dogwood Cornus stoloniferaWillows Salix spp. CElderberry Sambucus glauca CServiceberry Amelanchier alnifolia CWild rose Rosa CHawthorn Crataegus douglasii CWhite clematis Clematis ligusticifolia COregon grape Berberis aquifolium CPoison oak Rhus diversilobaSnowberry Symphoricarpos albus CGreasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus UBig sagebrush Artemisia tridentata U or RRabbitbrush Chysothamus viscififlorus U or RChokecherry Prunus virginiana UWestern sumac Rhus glabra C

Grasses

Sedge Carex spp. C

Redtop grass Agrostis alba CRye grass Elymnus sp. CKentucky blue grass Poa pratensia CQuack grass Agropyron repens C

A-1

-. -" - ~u iS, i I

AD-ABO9 957 CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE WASH SEATTLE DISTRICT F/6 13/9THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES STUDY, INTERIM REPORT, YAKIM-..ETC(U)MAR 80

U NCLASASIFID N

E2,,,2hh~mmmmhm7hh

IEFE~h~h

Timothy grass phicum pratensis

Orcar grssDactylis glomerata U

Barley Hordeum spp. C

Created wheatgrass Agropyron desertorumC

Forbs

WesernyarowAchilles millefolium C

stegng nettle Urtica lyallil C

Yellown swettler Melilo tus alba c

yllfa s ee lo e Medicago sativa U

Colfa l o r Trifolium SPP. C

colmbn ce r Aquilegia formosa C

comallfloern butcp Ranunculus testiculatus C

Waer helockigbutru Cicuta occidentalis C

Watr h o ck Antennaria roses C

ulle Verbascum tharpus C

mullen Apocynum androsaemifoliuml C

Coobn tisl Cirsium lavceoltum C

mmtad tl Brassia compesteris C

Willwtwd Epiloglum. sp.Wiepp eead Lepidium perfoliatulTeasperrs Dipsacus sylvestris

TEgls Plantago lanceolata C

Egihplantain Senecio vulgaris U

common groundsel Solidago elongata

Dandelion Taraxucum off icinale C

Madowlrue Thalictrum occidentale C

Ceow prni Heracleum lanatun C

Monkey flower Iiis langsdorf sii C

Rocky Mountain irishi mssuins

Aquatic pants

14martheea ploysepala CYellow pond lily Polygonum sp.Catail Typha latifolia C

Cktweed Lemna minorDuckruweed Scripus sPP. C

Common horsetailEqseu arneC

A-2

APPENDIX B

WILDLIFE tV rORY

The following birds, mamnals, reptiles, and amphibians use theproject area habitat at least part of the year. The list was provided by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Seasonal occurrence and abundance are coded as follows:

S - March- May * -Nests in area A - AbundantS - June- August C - CommonF - September - November U - UncommonW - December - February 0 - Occasional

R - Rare

Bird S S F W

Western Grebe 0Eared grebe 0Pied-billed grebe 0 0 0 0

Great blue heron C C C C

Black-crowned night heron 0 0

American bittern* U U U U

Whistling swan 0 0Canada goose C 0White-fronted goose U 0

Snow goose UMallard* A C A AGadwall* 0 0

Pintail* C C CGreen-winged teal* C C C

Blue-wnged teal* C 0Cinnamon teal* C C

American widgeon C C C

Shoveler* C C 0Wood duck* C C 0 URedhead U URing-necked duck 0 0 ULesser scaup 0 0 U

Bufflehead 0 0 0Ruddy duck* 0 0 0Hooded merganser U UCommon merganser 0 0

Turkey vulture 0 0 0Sharp-shinned hawk 0 0Cooper's hawk 0 0 0 0Red-tailed hawk"* C C C CSwainson's hawk C 0 C 0Rough-legged hawk C 0 C 0

Golden eagle U U 'J U

B-1

Bird S S F W

Bald eagle U U U U

Marsh hawk* C C C C

Prairie falcon 0 U 0

Peregrine falcon R R R R

Pigeon hawk 0 0 0

Sparrow hawk* C C C C

California quail* A A A A

Chukar 0 0 0 0

Ring-necked pheasant* A A A A

Virginia rail* C C C C

Sora* U U U U

American coot* 0 0 0 U

Killdeer* C C C U

Common snipe C C C

Long-billed curlew 0 0

Greater yellow legs 0 0

Lesser yellow legs C C

Least sandpiper C C

Long-billed dowitcher 0 0

Western sandpiper 0 0 0

Wilson's phalarope* C C 0

Ring-billed gull 0 C C

Black tern

Rock dove* C C C C

Mourning dove* C A A U

Barn owl* 0 0 0 0

Screech owl* C C C 0

Great horned owl* C C C C

Burrowing owl* C C C C

Short-eared owl 0 0 C C

Saw-whet owl U

Poor-will U U

Common night hawk C C C

Rufous hummingbird* 0 0 0

Calliope hummingbird 0

Belted kingfisher 0 0 0

Red-shafted flicker* C C C C

Lewis' woodpecker 0 0 0

Yellow-bellied sapsucker 0 0

Hairy woodpecker 0 0 0

Downy woodpecker 0 0 0

B-2

I.I

Bird S S W

Eastern kingbird* 0 0 0

Western kingbird* C C 0

Say's phoebe* 0 0 0

Western wood pewee 0 0 0

Horned lark U 0 0 C

Violet-green swallow 0 0

Tree swallow* A C C

Bank swallow* C C U

Rough-winged swallow 0 0

Barn swallow* C C U

Steller' s jay 0 0

Black-billed magpie* C C C C

Common raven C 0 U C

Common crow* C U U 0

Black-capped chickadee 0 0 0

Red-breasted nuthatch 0 0

Pigmy nuthatch 0 0

Brown creeper 0 0

House wren* 0 0 0

Winter wren 0 0

Bewick's wren* 0 0 0

Long-billed marsh wren* C C C U

Robbin* C C C 0

Varied thrush C C

Hermit thrush 0 0Townsend's solitaire 0 0

Golden-crowned kinglet C 0 C

Ruby-crowned kinglet C 0 CWater pipit 0 0

Cedar waxwing U ULoggerhead shrike* C C C C

Starling* C C C C

Warbling vireo 0

Yellow warbler 0Myrtle warbler U U

Audubon's warbler A 0 A R

Townsend's warbler 0 0

MacGillivray's warbler 0 0

B-3

Bird S S F V

Yellowthroat 0 0

Yellow-breasted chat 0 0

Wilson's warbler C C

House sparrow* A A A A

Western meadowlark* A A A C

Yellow-headed blackbird* C C 0

Red-winged blackbird* A A A 0

Bullock's oriole* C C U

Brewer's blackbird* C C C C

Brown-headed cowbird 0 0 0 0

Western tanager 0

Black-headed grosbeak 0

Evening grosbeak U U R

House finch* C C C 0

Pine siskin 0

American goldfinch C 0 C

Rufous-sided towhee 0 0 0 0

Savannah sparrow* C C C R

Vesper sparrow* C C C R

Sage sparrow* C C C

Oregon junco 0 C C

Harris' sparrow R R

White-crowned sparrow C 0 C U

Golden-crowned sparrow 0 0

Fox sparrow* C C C 0

Song sparrow C C C 0

B-4

The following manals, amphibians, and reptiles are permanentresidents of the project area.

Mammal s

Common Name Scientific Name

Vagrant shrew Sorex vagransDesert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboniYellow pine chipmunk Eutamias amoenusYellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventrisColumbia ground squirrel Citellus columbianusNorthern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoidesDeer mouse Peromyscus maniculatusLong-tailed meadow mouse Microtus longicaudus

Bushy-tailed wood rat Neotoma cinereaPorcupine Erethizon dorsatumBeaver Castor canadensisMuskrat Ondatra sibethicusMink Mustela visonStriped skunk Mephitis mephitisCoyote Canis latransRed fox Vulpes fulvaRaccoon Procyon lotorRiver otter Lutra canadensisShort-tailed weasel Mustela errmineaLong-tailed weasel Mustela frenataBadger Taxidea taxusBobcat Lynx rufusMule deer Odocoileus hemiounusShrew Sorex app.Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugusBig brown bat Eptesicus fuscusWhite-tailed hare Lepus townsendiiWestern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotisNutria Myocaster coypus bonariensisLeast chipmunk Eutasmias minimusMole Scapanus app.Common rat Rattus norvegicus

B-5

.il

Amphibians and Reptiles

Common Name Scientific Name

Long-toed salamader Ambystoma macrodactylumTiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinumWestern spadefoot Scaphiopus hamtondiWestern toad Bufo boreas

Pacific tree frog Hyla regillaSpotted frog Rana pretiosa

Painted turtle Chrysemys pictaWestern skink Eumeces skiltonianus

Northern alligator lizard Gerrhonotus coeruleusRacer Coluber constrictor

Gopher snake Pituophis cateniferCommon garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Western garter snake Thamnophis elegansWestern rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis

Swift Sceloporus graciosus gracilis

Pigmy horned lizard Phyrnosoma orbiculare douglassi

Rubber boa Charina bottaeTailed frog Ascaphus truei

Bull frog Rana catesbeiana

Rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa granulosa

B-6

APPENDIX CLMpoRtTANcs OF THIS AREA

TO WILDLIFE

By Gaylin Woodard, Washington Deparment of Game

Importance of This Area to Wildlife

The deep, rich soil found along the Yakima River bottom between theMoxee Bridge and Union Gap and other bottomland watercourses producesshrubs, grasses, seeds, and insects in greater abundance and nutritionthan anywhere else. These alluvial lands are life-producing for youngand life-sustaining for adult birds. The range of upland birds is keyedto a water supply, but the watercourse provides something more thandrinking water, for here are produced the large cottonwoods that providenesting habitat for great blue heron rookeries and hollows for woodducks, and here, also, are produced the willows, dogwood, serviceberry,clematis, hawthorn, and currant utilized by countless species of wild-life for food and cover. As the extent of bottomland gets smaller, itassumes a greater relative importance. The popular concept is that ofcontinuous upland bird range, but in fact there are many islands or voidswithin the range that do not support birds. However, there is rarely anundisturbed streambank area in Washington that does not sustain uplandbird life. Any disturbance in that area that would affect the marshesand swamps or alter the flows of the ditches and channels would have aresultant proportional effect on the wildlife and the food chain thatsupports it. In any key ecological area, the relationship between natureand the land that supports it lies in a very delicate balance. Youngmallard ducklings are very dependent upon mosquito larvae for their foodsource during their first few weeks. Therefore, alterations that affectmosquito propagation directly affect the local mallard population. Alsoadjacent to the reserve is a small patch of vegetation which attracts acertain rare butterfly. This area has been established as a nature sitefor perpetual observation by outdoor enthusiasts. Should the relation-ship between that insect and its environment be altered, howeverslightly, the value of that area may be lost forever.

The natural fertility of the alluvial flood plain of the Yakima Riverprovides the essential base of algae, mosses, lichens, grasses, herbs,shrubs, and trees upon which over 180 species of birds, mammals, rep-tiles, and amphibians are highly dependent.

Waterfowl, Upland and Migratory

The riparian habitat along this stretch of the river is heavilyutilized by many species of birds as a nesting, brooding, or winteringarea. This habitat provides important cover and food in addition to theavailability of water. Mallard, wood duck, and the greater Canadiangoose hatch and rear their young in this area. Other waterfowl usingthe area are bluewing, greenwing, and cinnamon teal, gadwall, pintail,widgeon, shoveler, coot, mergansers, and whistling swan. The pied-billed grebe and great blue heron are frequent and common users of theshorelines in the area. In fact, a large heron rookery is located inthe cottonwood trees growing in the bottom along the side channels. Asmany as 40 herons have been observed at one time at the rookery.

C-I

The area also supports a very high population of Chinese pheasant,valley quail, and the migratory mourning dove and Wilson snipe. Inaddition to the above birds, sora rails, phalarope, avocet, curlew,

kingfishers, and yellow-headed blackbirds have been observed in thearea. Redtail, marsh, coopers, and American kestrel include the area

within their territory for both hunting and nesting. Chukar inhabit thelower, rocky slopes above the valley but depend upon the brushy water-

course for insects and water source in simer and productive cover andfood during extreme winters. The dependency of wildlife on river edge-riparian habitat has been well documented in Washington (Wendell Oliver,Wells Dam Project Studies).

The 933-acre Moxee Reserve is situated along the river bottom in

Union Gap. This reserve, established in 1952, holds up to 40,000 ducksand is effective in holding populations that provide flights of ducksinto the Moxee, Wenas, and Ahtanum areas during hunting seasons.

There are, of course, many nongame species of birds (more than 135species identified) dependent upon the habitat along the river for their

existence in that area, all of which are gaining increasing importanceto those interested in conserving our wildlife resource.

Waterfowl upon a variety of aquatic vegetation, such as the fronds,

stems and roots of smartweed, pond weed, duck weed, and bulrushes, andanimal matter such as insects, mollusks, crustaceans, and small fish.

Pheasants feed on cereal grains, weed seeds, and grasses, while quail,which prefer the thick brushy areas along streambanks, are especially

fond of wild rose hips. Chukar prefer grasses and insects, while snipe

are worm- and insect-eaters. Herons wade the shallows along the riverand its side channels looking for small fish and other aquatic organisms.

Furbearers

Most of the major species of furbearers of the state are found in

the area between the Moxee Bridge and Union Gap along the Yakima River

and its side channels. These include beaver, muskrat, mink, raccoon,

nutria, and otter. Food includes leaves and bark of willow and poplar,roots and stems of pond lily, pond weeds, cattail, and fish andcrustaceans.

Big Game

Riparian habitat is a rich source of food and cover for deer which

are commonly observed along the river bottom in the Union Gap area.They eat a large variety of grasses, herbs, shrubs, and deciduous trees,including aspen, willow, red osier dogwood, and serviceberry. Again,

there are many smaller mamals that find streambank habitat essentialfor food, cover, or water. High populations of coyote, cottontail,rabbits, weasel, and skunk exist in the area along with lesser popula-tions of fox, bobcat, porcupine, chipmunk, and ground squirrels.

C-2

Reptiles and Amphibians

Western painted turtles are quite common in the area. Others associatedwith wet areas are northern alligator lizard, western skink, rubber boa,ringneck snake, sharptail snake, garter snake, long-toed salamander, Pacific

tree frog, tailed frog, and northwestern toad.

C-3

APPENDIX D)

FISH INVENTORY

The following list of fish was provided by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Little is known about their relative abundancewithin the project reach, but nongame fish such as carp and suckersare believed to predominate,

Common Name Scientific Name

Western brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoniPacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatusWhite sturgeon Acipenser transmontanusCoho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutchChinook salmon Oncorhynchus tehawytachaMountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoniCutthroat trout Salmo clarkiRainbow and steelhead trout Salmo gairdneriBrown trout Salmo trutt~aBrook trout Salv'elinus fontinalisDolly Varden Salvelinus malmaTui chub Gila bicolorChiselniouth Acrocheilus alutaceusCarp Cyprinus caipioPeamouth Mylocheilus caurinusNorthern squavfish Ptychocheilus oregonensisLongnose dace Rhinichthys cataractaeLeopard dace Rhinichthys falcatusSpeckled dace Rhinichthys osculusRedside shiner Richardsonfris balteatuaBridgelip sucker Catostomus columbianusLargescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilusMountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus.Black bullhead Ictalurus melasSand roller Percopsis transmontanaPumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosusBluegill Lepomis macrochirusSmallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieuiLargemouth bass Micropterus salmoidesBlack crappie PomoxIs nigromaculatusYellow perch Pet-ca flavescensPrickly sculpin Cottus asperMottled sculpin Cuttus bairdiPiute sculpin Cottus beldingiTorrent sculpin Cottus rhotheusShorthead sculpin Cot tus confusus

D-1

APPENDIX E

CORRESPONDENCE WITH SOURCES

OF CULTURAL RESOURCES EXPERTISE

Cooke/mb/702513 Feb 1974

NPSEN-PL-ER 19 FEB 1914

Mr. Frank GreenWashington State Historical Society315 1lorth Stadiii WayTacoma, Washington 98403

Dear Mr. Green:

We are preparing an environnental impact statement on a proposed setbacklevee systemn for the Yakina River between the !.oxee bridge in Yakiria(Highway 24) and Union Gap. The current proposed levee alinement isdepicted zs a solid red line on the inclosed map. This alinemnt istentative and subject 'o som.e slight change. Based on readily avail-able Information which you m~ay wish to furnish at no cost to the UnitedStates Governert, I would appreciate receiving infon;.ation on the effect,if any, this project would have on any known or potential historical,archeologicat, and paleontological resources.

If you have any further questions, please contract Mr. Paul Cooke of nystaff who will be preparing this environmental statenent. Mr. Cookecan be reached at (206) 442-7025. This sane request Nas been sent toIndtvtduals listed on Inclosure 2.

Sincerely pjrs, DICE/si

THRU:SELLEVOLD

2 Ind Steven F. Dice STEINBORN

As stated Chief, Environmental Resources SectionED PL FILES

cc: w/inclERS RP FileBasin Plng, Urabeck

E_- 1

SAME COMMUNICATION SENT TO:

Mr. Frank GreenWashington State Historical Society315 North Stadium WayTacoma, Washington 98403

Mr. Albert CulverwellEastern Washington State

4iistorical Society2316 West Ist AvenueSpokane, Washington 99204

Richard D, Daugherty, DirectorWashingtoo Archeological Research CenterWashington State UniversityPullman, Washington 99163

Robert C. Dunnell, ChairmanAnthropology DepartmentUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington 98195

Mr. Roy W. Reaves, IIIDenver Service Center-National Park Service7200 West AlamedaDenver, Colorado 80226

Charles H. Odegaard, Historic Preservation OfficerWashington State Parks and

Recreation CommissionPost Office Box 1128Olympia, Washington 98504

Yakima Valley Historical Society2105 Tieton DriveYakima, Washington 98902

Incl 2

E-2

United States Department of the InteriorNATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DENVER SERVICE CENTER655 Parfet Street

IN RY R E R TO: P.O. BOX 25287Denver, Colorado 80225

April 5, 1974

Steven F. -DiceChief, Environmental Resources SectionDepartment of the ArmySeattle District, Corps of Engineers1519 Alaskan Way South

Seattle, Washington 98134

Dear Mr. Dice:

I have reviewed the proposal on the levee system for the YakimaRiver 4etween the Moxee Bridge and Union Gap which you sent to meFebruary 19, 1974.

I have no direct knowledge of the cultural resources within this area.As I have indicated previously, in my memorandum of December 12, 1973,the nature of my comment is to advise you under Section 3f of ExecutiveOrder 11593 regarding this proposal. In constructing the levee you needto be concerned with the nature of the impact which you will have on- andthe significance of buildings, districts, sites and objects with thefollowing provenience (s):

1. borrow areas for levee construction material.2. sites with river bottom provenience if dredging orother disturbance is to occur.3. areas disturbed in construction of levee itself.

The area in this project which would seem to potentially be most sensitiveis the area adjacent to Union Gap, particularly at the confluences ofSpring and Wide Hollow Creeks. At these locations there would seem to bea high potential of finding both historical and archeological remains.

If I can be of further assistance please let me know.

Sinccrcly.S, , .'/

- /' , ' - "t(Roy'W. Reaves, III

. CONSCRVE 'Archeologist, Executive Order1 \AMERICAS Consult ant (Denver)4ENEROY

V4 RWR :ef

Save Energy and You Serve America!

UNIVERSIT? OF WASHINGTON

4f A mmrLI WMKTOI ISO19

Dr. Sea F. Dice, Chief3avirosetal Resources sect ionDepertenst of the ArawSeattle District, corps of ftiser1319 Alaskan Way SouthSeattle, Wasbiuston "134

Dear Des Dice:

W.ae hadW an opportuity to examin our records with reeteet to yrewinquiry about the arceaological materials that might be affeted ts theproposed setbeak levee systsin rtha Takims liver beftes dw Mime MdAMadi get". ap. The site survey records available here do set Uimle doVnese of amy archaeological materials to the project ame brat at the mtim they reveal that noayse matic survey of the area bas bem es e Cam-questly the absence of knowsesterial does not ladicate dhe aboaeem oil thesignificant aree.Ioloical resources is the project aea

TO the centrary nearby are suggest that important material OWwallbe loated to the project area. There Is, for exq'le, a group of aitenorth of tabim (IM 16, 17, and to)o an alluvial faa at the esfiuee ofthe Takims and lema Rivers. Newrby is Selak oeqs m add&Itismal stsarbanum (U 47 sod 46). These ewe petrglypbs sad series in stme doeieupatise site& weare" the rivers. Is simlar fasbic a lag almata oftee or ore sites is reported for the Simeo-7ort limos ore to tba soudwset.All of this Indicates a fairly high dens ity of erehaplosieal, mteril *a ofwar the rivers of Me9 as and strongly suggsts that the abeeme of rqitmaterial from ths project ares io simply an artifact !of no .Me havftg ceere systematically.

I hope this information Is of va lue. I trust that better and more up-to-date information 'will be forthcoming from Washington State. If I can be offurther assistance in this matter, I will be pleased to cooperate.

Sincerely yours,

I V L10,

Robert C. DunnellChairman

', THE WASHINGTON STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY3S No. Stadium Way February 22, 197L

Tacoma,Washington

98403

Mr. Paul CookeDepartment of the trmySeattle District, Corps of Engineers

1519 Alaskan Way South

Seattle, "ashingtcn 9&83L

Dear Mr. Cooke:

The following might have some bearing on the proy:sed setback levee system

for the Yakima River as mentioned in your letter of 19 Feb.

There is a monument one mile east of the Union Gap Bridge cn the old YoxeeHighway coremorating the first settlers and the first sch7*. The Thorp fanilycabin was located 100 feet west of the memorial. It was crec:ed by the YakimaValley Historical Iociety which might have sor m better idea c: exactly whatimpact your project would have. They are located at 2105 Tieon Dr., Yakima98902.

The Narcissa Wlhitman Chapter of the DAR placed a ronurzent near Union Gapto mark the site of a battle between Governhment forces ard indians tov. 9, 1856.

Neither of these is under consideration by the State Adviscry Council forHistoric Preservation for submission to the National h.gister of historic Sites.

For that reason I suspect the local society mentioned above wculd be the one to

consult about them or other potential historical reecurces in that area.

Sincerely,

Frank L. Green

Librarian

ASHINGTON STATE HT

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATIONP. 0. BOX 1128, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504

DANIEL J. EVANS, Governor

RALPH D. ANDERSON ALBERT CULVERWELL JON DANIELSON MRS. ERIC FEASEY ROBERT E. GREENGOJOHN J. GURNEE KENNETH R. HOPKINS BRUCE LE ROY RICHARD F. McCURDY DAVID H. STRATTON

CHARLES H. ODEGAARD, Executive Director

March 6, 1974

Mr. Steven F. Dice, ChiefEnvironmental Resources SectionSeattle District, Corps of Engineers1519 Alaskan Way SouthSeattle, Washington 98134

Dear Mr. Dice:

Your letter to Mr. Charles H. Odegaard, the State HistoricPreservation Officer, has been referred to me for reply.

Our records indicate that no properties listed in either theState or National Registers-of Historic Places will be adverselyaffected by the proposed setback levee system for theLXAkimaRiver between the Moxee Bridge in Yakima (State Route #24) andUi on Gap.

However, our survey is continuing, and you should be aware thatthere, might be unrecorded historic properties within the projectboundaries. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and feelfree to contact me at (206) 753-4117 if you desire any furtherinformation.

Sincerely,

Glen LindemanHistoric PreservationSpecialist

bd

WASIINGTON ARCiIALOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER'' WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY PULLMAN. WASHINGTON 99165

DIRECTORRICHARD D. DAL'HERTY. PH.D.

ASSISTANT DIRECTORHARVEY S. RICE

PHONE 509-A35-66S1SCAN 426-6681

March 19, 1974

Steven F. DiceChief, Environmental Resources SectionSeattle District, Corps of Engineers1519 Alaskan Way SouthSeattle, WA 98134

Dear Dr. Dice:

In reference to your letter of February 19 regarding a levee system for theYakima River between the Moxee Bridge in Yakima and Union Gap, we have no archaeologicaldata for this area. No archaeological reconnaissance has been made of this portionof the Yakima River to date.

The potential for archaeological resources appears to be quite high sinceIndian encampments are most frequently found adjacent to watercourses in theColumbia Plateau.

I recommend that an archaeological reconniassance of two days duration beaccomplished and the results of the reconnaissance be included in the envirormentalimpact statement for this project. This will insure the consideration of anyarchaeological resources that may be within the project area in project planningand construction.

Sincerely,

Harvey. RiceAscistant Dircztor

HSR:glr

EIi7

Cooke/rs/70263 Apr 74

Lnarles F. JOWWAMai, Rtegion&] ArCheelo-istPacific "I.W. Regiona .tfice

Ngatln Park Service1424 4thi AvenuSeattle, Washington 9e6h0I

jear 'a'r. 60hfanw~4.

kecent Infom't1.rn received Frow M~r. t~arvey S,. Fice of Vie washlinton4rc#aeoloja1 i~eearct Center (Iraclosamw 1) aria -r. R~obert C.. J)unnellof the universIty of wasain,,tar 3epAr.nat of 4tiunropolo~y (Inclosare 2)Iialcates the pote~ntial for arctisoloqjical resources alopq tIne VakIbaRiver uetwesa the homa isride and1 6.-Moo "ip. H)r. Rice recow..npds thatan archeological recounnaissonce of two days duratle., be accomplished.

vie request fmat you analyze this recowiftoation aitw, if appropriate.perfor.a such a survey for usu in tha prfeparation~ of our eiivi rowetali.pct statev~iet for our flood da~age re4&ction study In this area.imi would appreciate re~ivitiq the results of tsiis sturvey tiy 31 -ay 1-974.

3cr 13 February 19~74 r.ultiple-adoressee letter to several archeol~ogicalanu tiistorical agenies and societies inclwed wars of thie study area1oU11ling proposed levee al1iaerats. wes iiave 1idosed tii ivnforiationfor your use (Inclosure 3). Please call Vir. Faul Cooke of fay staff at(6 WU) 442-702? if you have any qwestloas.

Slincerely y'ous, DICE/s/

THRU SELLEVOLD

~ i'* ncE~ STEINBORNLicl ED-PL File

..opy furnistm.a. um4r. koy 4. Reaves, IIIjeve Svrvice tLvntersiatio.nal Park Servtc*weaver, %.olarado 80226

CC. b1P Sec (Urabeck) ju/mdc) ECooke (w/incl k.-ERS RP File~ (w/incl)

United States Department of the InteriorNATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Pacific Northwest RegionFourth and Pike Building

IN REPLY aFER TO: Seattle, Washington 98101

H2219(PNR)PSA April 8, 1974

Mr. Steven F. DiceChief, Environmental Resources

SectionCorps of Engineers1519 Alaskan Way SouthSeattle, Washington 98134

Dear Mr. Dice:

We have reviewed your letter of April 3 concerning an archeological

survey of the Yakima River and Tributaries Study. Such a reconnais-

sance would seem to be necessary, but the National Park Service will

be unable to fund such a study since our fiscal year 1974 funds are

already committed to other projects.

Sincerely yours,

Charles F. BohannonRegional Archeologist

. .........

APPENDIX F

LETTERS RECEIVED ON

DRAFT STATEMENT

N -

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AJENCY. \ os R EGIO N X

1200 SIXTH AVENUE

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

REPLY TOATNo:lOFA - M/S 623

FEB i sIg

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerSeattle District, Corps of EngineersP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement on thed -1innGap flood damaae redJQtionproject. The project will cause short-termincreasds in turbidity and sediment during construction, and replacementof vegetation with rip rap may cause increased summer stream temperatures.However, adequate control of turbidity and temperature should be possibleif the Corps takes proper precautions during the construction phase andinstitutes an appropriate revegetation program.

The Environmental Protection Agency has rated this draft environmentalstatement LO-l, LO (Lack of Objections) 1 (Adequate Information). Therating will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with ourresponsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federalactions under section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft environmental statement.

Sincerely,t .' /. ,

Alexandra B. SmithDirectorOffice of Federal Affairs

Appendix 276

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

1500 N.E. IRVING STREETP.O. BOX 3737

Reference: EC PORTLAND, OREGON 97208

Colonel John A. Poteat FEB 2 3 1977District EngineerSeattle District, Corps of EngineersP. 0. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

As requested by the Director of the Department of the Interior's Office ofEnvironmental Project Review, we are pleased to provide you with our technicalcomments on your draft environmental statement and draft feasibility reportfor Flood Damage Reduction, Yakima-Union Gap, Yakima County, Washington. Weunderstand that these documents are intended to form a basis for futureCongressional action and that Departmental comments by Interior will be re-quested by the Chief of Engineers at a later date. Consequently, the follow-ing comments are on items within areas of jurisdiction or expertise of theU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and do not represent the position of theDepartment of the Interior on the contemplated project.

Draft Environmental Statement

General Comments

These documents in general satisfactorily address project impacts on fish andwildlife resources.

Specific Comments

Page 9, paragraph 1.28. Barrow Sources. Insert the following sentence: Borrowand spoil areas would be carefully selected to minimize problems of habitatrestoration.

Page 10. paragraph 1.30, Project Maintenance. Maintenance measures wouldinclude periodic removal of trees, shrubs, and concurrently, wildlife useof this environment. We suggest that the text also identify areas receivinghabitat enhancement so that routine maintenance would not disrupt them. Also,we believe that you should consider removal of the following sentence: "Ascalled for in the Operations and Maintenance Manual for the existing Corpslevee project, local interests would still be required to remove trees andlarge shrubs from a portion of the floodway between Moxee Bridge and Selah

'~l CONSERVEAMERICAS

Appendix 2 Save Energy and You Serve America!64

Gap in order to pass design flood." Our representatives have discussed withCorps personnel the matter of vegetation removal in the floodway. We wereassured at that time by project engineers that the levee would pass designfloods without need for removal of trees and large shrubs from the floodway.If this situation has recently changed, it should be more adequately addressedin the text.

Page 12, par. 1.36, Interrelationships and Compatibility with Existing orProposed Corps or Other Agency Projects. The Bureau of Reclamation is workingwith Fish and Wildlife Service personnel in evaluating problems and solutionsto fisheries resources involving Roza Wasteway. It appears that any solutionwould be affected by the proposed levee, and we suggest this matter could beacknowledged and addressed in this section.

Page 25, par. 2.30, item (2). Remove the phrase "...less desirable nongamefish..." and replace with "...other nongame fish..."

Page 44, par. 2.72, General Area. We have understood that the proposedBumping Lake Reformulation Project could, by increasing low flows, benefitfisheries in the Yakima River watershed. So, we suggest the following reword-ing: If the proposed Bumping Lake Reformulation Project is realized, lowflow augmentation would aid fisheries resources in the Yakima River system.

Page 47. par. 2.82, Project Area. We suggest the following rewording of the firstsentence from "...the only species..." to "...the only known species..."

Page 54. par. 4.05. sentence 4. Short-Term Vegetation Impacts. Remove the word"insignificant."

Page 54, par. 4.07. Short-Term Wildlife Impacts. We suggest rewording the firstsentence from "...would cause temporary loss of..." to "...would cause disrup-tional..."

Page 55. par. 4.08, Short-Term Fish Impacts. We ask consideration of thefollowing rewording: Timing of construction activity on the riverward sidewill be coordinated with appropriate Federal and State agencies to minimizeimpacts on fisheries during migration periods.

Page 63, par. 4.34, Long-Term Vegetation Impacts. We recommend revising thefirst sentence from "...(17 acres important as wildlife habitat)" to "...(17acres of higli quality wildlife habitat)."

Page 65, pay. 4.39. Replace "insignificant" with "minor."

2

Appendix 2

65

Page 66, par. 4.41, Long-Term Fish Impacts. It would apparently be moreaccurate to revise the last sentence to read: The U. S. Fish and WildlifeService has estimated that the proposal would result in an initial loss of350 angler days of fishing within the project area; however, revegetationand other mitigation measures may significantly reduce this impact.

Page 66, par. 4.42., Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Species. Thefirst sentence could be revised to say "...is the only officially designatedendangered species known to utilize the project site." We also suggest abrief discussion of project proximity to the unique 14-acre sphagnum bogowned by Nature Conservancy, which attracts a rare silver borderedfritillary butterfly (Blaria selene).

Rage 72, par. 5.04. We suggest changing the third sentence from "...wouldsuffer small but permanent losses" to "would suffer some permanent losses."

Appendix C, page C-2. Common names of animals should not be capitalized (un-less a proper name) nor underlined, only scientific names.

The common name for sparrow hawk is American kestrel.

Appendix C, page C--4. Neither the northern bald eagle nor osprey are presentlyclassified as endangered species under Federal listing in Washington.

Specific Comments, Draft Feasibility Report

We recommend revising the described environmental impacts as follows:

There will be some adverse impacts on the natural environment. Mostnew levees would be set back from the main river channel and, there-for, would eliminate only some riparian vegetation. Native plantswould be used after levee construction to help reestablish wildlifehabitat. Only a few acres of pasture would be lost to levee con-struction.

Page 14, Natural Resources. We suggest substituting Canada geese for snow geese,since they are more common to the area. Black brant are seabirds and do notoccur here. We suggest substituting the nomenclature coho salmon for silversalmon.

Page 26. Reference is made to the Bumping Lake Reformulation Project andhow this procedure would meet irrigation water requirements. This statementseems only partly correct. Primary purpose of i inping Lake Reformulation

3Appendix 2

66 prf

Project is to provide instream flow enhancement. Secondary functions includerecreation, irrigation, and flood control. We suggest revising this paragraphto reflect the primary project purpose.

Page 54, Effects of the Plan on Environment. Revise second sentence from"...(Highway 24), should have minor measurable..." to "...(Highway 24), shouldhave some measurable..."

Page 57. Construction. Insert the following: Timing of construction activityon the riverward side will be coordinated with appropriate Federal and Stateagencies to minimize project impact on fisheries resources during migrationperiods.

Page 59. Operation and Maintenance. Areas receiving revegetation for wildlifemitigation should be clearly indicated so routine maintenance activities do notaccidentally damage these sites.

Page 76. Environmental Considerations. Revise first sentence to say: Therecommended plan (environmental quality plan) could have both short-term andlong-term effects on fish and wildlife populations.

B-1, Natural Resources. We suggest including a paragraph on wildlife resources.

C-8, Item 16. See our comments for page 26. They are appropriate for thissection as well and should be revised to reflect the primary purpose of BumpingLake Reformulation Project.

E-20, Revegetation. Include the phrase "wildlife enhancement and beautification

measures" where the term beautification now occurs.

E-22, Construction. Please refer to our comments for page 57, construction.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

ms W. TeeterAssistant Regional DirectorEnvironment

9IAppendix 2

t 67

14

United States Department of the InteriorNATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Pacific Northwest RegionFourth and Pike Building

IN REPLY REER TO: Seattle, Washington 98101

L7619(PNR)PCC February 16, 1977

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Engineer District, SeattleP.O. Box C-3755

Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement and draft feasibilityreport for Flood Damage Reduction, Yakima-Union Gap, Yakima County,Washington.

We are pleased to learn that there will be a comprehensive survey of

the project area for cultural resources prior to any ground-disturbingactivities. Resources which are discovered should, of course, beevaluated for eligibility for the "National Register of HistoricPlaces," and if eligible, they should be nominated.

The preceeding represents the views of this agency only and notnecessarily those of the Department of the Interior.

Sincerely yours,

yo~es S. Rouse/yAtig Asoiate Regional Director,

Pla;nning and Resource Preservation

,ALUTIopn 4

SAppendix 2

4UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

NORTHWEST REGION

IN REPLY REFER TO 915 SECOND AVENUE, RM. 990D6427-CNP SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98174E 3027ER-77/37

FFF 1 77

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerSeattle, District,Corps of EngineersP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for flood damage

reduction atlYakima-Union Gap, Yakima River Basin, Washington. We

believe it adequately describes project impacts on outdoor recreation

and the related environment.

Sincerely yours,

taurice Hl. Lunegional Directo

- I

United States Department of the InterioBUREAU OF RECLAMATION

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONFEDERAL BUILDING 8c U.S. COURTHOUSE

BOX 043-550 WEST FORT STREETBOISE, IDAHO 83724

1% RFPL' 6REV'R TO 160

120. 1

District Engineer WTSeattle District, Corps of

EngineersDepartment of the ArmyP. 0. Box C-3755

Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the draft environmental statement and feasibilityreport on "Flood Damage Reduction, Yakima-Union Gap, Yakima County,Washington - ER 77/37), and have the following comments on the draftenvironmental statement for your consideration:

Page iii -- If the separate Interior agencies are to belisted in your distribution list, then several others shouldbe added, including the Bureau of Reclamation.

Page 42, 2d paragraph, last sentence -- This sentence shouldbe deleted since preliminary evaluations of other storage siteswithin the Yakima River Basin show favorable results.

Page 76, Ist paragraph, last sentence -- This sentence shouldbe delr' I since preliminary evalations of storage sites withinthe Yakima Indian Reservation show favorable results.

Please let us know if we can provide further assistance.

Sincerely,

Assistant Regional Director

cc: Commissioner, Attn: 150Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, USDI, WDC

,oUT0 4o

C.)

Appendix 2

""76.191ro 24 "A

United States Department of the InteriorBUREAU OF MINES

EAST 315 MONTGOMERY AVENUE

SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99207

Western Field Operation CenterJanuary 21, 1977

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerU.S. Army's Engineers DistrictP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

The Draft Environmental Statement and the Draft Feasibility Report forFlood Damage Reduction, Yakima-Union Gap, Washington (ER-77/37), hasbeen referred to this office by the Department of Interior's Office ofEnvironmental Project Review for comments relevant to the report'smineral data.

Aspects of geology, minerals, and borrow sites are adequately covered inthe environmental statement. The project should not adversely affectmineral development.

Mineral production statistics in the section covering minerals inAppendix I of the technical report (page B-2) should be updated. Thefirst two sentences should read: "Total value of mineral production inthe county in 1974 was $3.5 million, or 2 percent of the state's totalproduction. Major minerals produced in order of value were sand andgravel, crushed basalt, lime, and dimension granite and basalt."

Sincerely yours,

R. . pp r., Chie fWestern FielfOperation enter

L0UTIOV

z

- j

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201

January 25, 1977

Sidney Knutson, Ass't. ChiefEngineering DivisionDepartment of the ArmySeattle DistrictCorps of EngineersP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Mr. Knutson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft environmental impactstatement for the Columbia River and Tributaries Study Interim Report,Yakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction,lYakima River Basin Washington.

We have no comments on the report and feel it adequately addresses allsituations with the exception of the effect of the proposed action onprime and unique farmlands. Following is the information requested onprime and unique lands within the project area.

No unique lands have been designated within the area affected by project

action.

Prime lands within the project area are:

Map Symbol Mapping Unit Name Capability Subclass

181 Esquatzel silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slope I621 Toppenish silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slope Ilw451 Wenas silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slope IIw561 Yakima silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slope Is

It appears that only the lower spur of the levey will cross prime lands.If an alternative site for this spur can feasibly be utilized, it wouldpraierve this prime agricultural land.

Enclosed is a copy of a soil survey field sheet of the area proposed forproject action. This is a preliminary survey sheet and is subject tocorrelation changes. If further information is needed, please feel freeto contact Chuck Lenfesty, Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Service,2015 South First Street, Yakima, Washington 98903.,

Sincerely /

Galen S. Zr ge KState 9servationist

Appendix 2 . I68

( ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

The Assistant Secretary for Science and TechnologyWashington. D.C. 20230

February 23, 1977

Colonel John A. PoteatSeattle District, Corps of EngineersDepartment of the ArmyPost Office Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

This is in reference to your draft environmental impactstatement entitled "The Columbia River and Tributaries StudyInterim Report, Yakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction,Yakima River Basin, Washington." The enclosed commentsfrom the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration areforwarded for your consideration.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide thesecomments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. Wewould appreciate receiving eight copies of the final statement.

Sincerely,

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Environmental Affairs

Enclosures Memo from: Mr. Fred CleaverChief, FNW5NOAA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdminlstrationNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICEEnvironmental & Technical Services DivisionP. 0. Box 4332, Portland, Oregon 97208

January 27, 1977 t Lq

To : Director, Office of Ecology and Environmental Conservation, FE

I S dt- 04 1977Thru 2: Acting Assistant Director for Scientific and Technical

Services, F5

Frau Cleaver, Chief, FNWd5

Subject: Comrmeiits on Draft Environmental Statement--The Columbia Riverand Tributaries Study Interim Report, Yakima-Union Gap FloodDamage Reauction, Yakima River Basin, Washington (CE) DES #7701.13

The Draft Environmental Statement for The Columbia River and TributariesStudy Interim Report Yakima-Union Gap Flooa Damage Reduction, YakimaRiver Basin, WashinGton that accompanieu your memorandum of January 14,1977, has been received by the i4ational Marine Fisheries Service forreview and comment. The statement has been reviewed and the followingcomments are offered for your consideration.

General Conments

Although we anticipate no direct impact on anedromous fish spawningareas with the proposed project, more attention should be given to thetimiag of any instream work since .any of the anaaromous speciescurrently found in the Yakima system migrate through the project area.All instream worlk should be done during the lowest flow periods intne Yakima River system. Instrean work auring migration periods willir.hibit migration of anadromous fish, and have an adverse impact onthe Indian fishery whicri occurs immediately below the project area onWapato and Sunn'-side Irrigation Diversion Dams.

Specific Coryaents

2.0 ENVIROi._*.4TAL 5UPItiG WITrnOUT TaL PROJECT

Outaoor Recreation

2.26 General Area

Page 23, paragraph 2. In this para&;raph coho salmon should also beadded to tne list of anacroiaous fish found in the Yakina basin.

4-

z-iZ 69'

Proposed Flood Damage Reduction Measures - Flood Control Storage

2.67 General Area

Page 42, paragraph 2. This paragraph should also mention that 324,000acre-feet of water will be stored in Enlarged Bumping Lake for fishenhancement flows in the Yakima 3iver system.

Water Quality

2.72 General Area

Page 44, paragraph 1. Another very significant problem encounteredby anadromous fish in the Yakima system is their inability to migratedue to poor passa;e conditions at the existing diversion dams ana thepractices of diverting too much water for irrigation and power in theYakima system, particularly below Sunnyside and Prosser Dams. Also,the 3umping Lake 2 nlargement Project does riot have dilution of pollutionas a project purpose. Much of the flows prooosed for the Yakima systemfrom Bumpinp Lake Lnlargement are for spownin;, rearing, and migrationof fish.

Fish

2.O General anu Project Area

Page 46. parag'raph 2. It shoula ba nentionec that the 1,000 fallchinook which currentl.) enter the Yaima Hiver system spawn primarilybelow the Chandler ?owerhouse in the Yakima river and would not migratepast the project area.

4.o Ta, .,OBLABL II-.PACT O1 Th!' PROPOS.lD ACTION ON TilE ,NVIRONY1<:T

4.08 Short-Term fish impacts

Page 55. paragrapn 2. It should be mentioned here that short-termimpacts can be severe on the anadromous fish resource and Indianfisheries if construction occurs during the mic;ration of anadromousfish.

2

F-t3

Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation1522 K Street N.WWashington, D.C. 20005

March 18, 1977

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerCorps of Engineers, Seattle DistrictDepartment of the ArmyP. 0. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

This is in response to your request of January 5, 1977 for commentson the draft environmental statement (DES) for the Yakima-Union GapFlood Damage Reduction Program, Yakima River Basin, Washington.Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation has determined that this DES demonstratescompliance with Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct of 1966 prior to its amendment on September 28, 1976, but thatit does not demonstrate compliance with Section 106, as amended,(90 Stat. 1320). However, it appears that the Corps of Engineersrecognizes its responsibilities pursuant to Section 106, as amended,and will carry them out in the future.

The Corps is reminded that should future surveys identify culturalproperties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of HistoricPlaces which will be affected by the undertaking, it must afford theCouncil an opportunity to comment pursuant to the "Procedures for theProtection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800),prior to taking any further actior with respect to the undertakingwhich will affect the cultural properties.

Should you have any questions or require additional assistance inthis matter, please contact Brit Allan Storey of the Council'sDenver staff at P. 0. Box 25085, Denver, Colorado 80225, telephonenumber (303) 234-4946.

Sincerely your

C- _- _1j Loui S. Wall

Assistant Director, Office

of Review and Compliance

The Council is an nd,'pndnt unit of the Eucutic Branch of the Federal Government cbarged by the Act ofOctober 15, 1966 to adi ise tbi Prosident and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.

February 22, 1977

-'i, Ii( , ,

Colonel John A. Poteat, District Engineer ,U.S. Army Engineer District, SeattlePost Office Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

Your draft environmental impact statement and your feasibility report forYai-n Ga lowodDa ma dctn proposal have been reviewed in theDepartment of co ogy. ewould like o offer the following comments:

(1) We feel that maintenance of the levees is an important aspectof this proposal. We would like to have some assurance, that a regularprogram of inspection and maintenance would be carried on.

(2) Only brief mention is made of the possibility of recreationaluse of this facility. The direct benefits of this publicly financed projectcould be expanded to more individuals by incorporating recreational facilitiesin the project.

(3) Appendix 2 of the Interim Report contains a letter from YakimaCounty dated November 30, 1976, stating that the County will "adjust allclaims pertaining to water rights". This is somewhat confusing, as theauthority to deal with water rights does not lie with the City or County,but rather with the Department of Ecology.

In addition to the comments by this Department, we have gathered commentsfrom other concerned state agencies. We have attached copies of the fulltext of the comments. Summarized they are:

Department of Fisheries: Reviewing the public brochure,alternate 4 appears to be the most feasible alternative.

Levees will prevent loss of downstream anadromous migrantsfrom stranding as flood flows recede.

The Department of Fisheries would like to review constructionplans and procedures to determine that there will be nodetriment to the fishery resource.

Parks and Recreation Commission: The proposed project iswithin Yakima Sportsman State Park. The Commission staffis concerned about the dike on the east bank of the YakimaRiver. The aesthetic quality of the park may be adverselyaffected by loss of vegetation. They feel a jointly developedlandscape plan would be important prior to construction. Thedetailed comments from Parks and Recreation are attached.

Appendix 2

Letter to John A. PotFebruary 22, 1977Page 2

Department of Natural Resources: Regards Alternative 4 ashaving minimal impact on state-owned shore and bed.

"The report does not mention where the levy material willbe obtained. Our River Management Policy Plan does notfavor removal of material from the stream bed for suchpurposes."

We appreciate the effort expended by the Corps of Engineers to involve allinterested persons and agencies in the planning and development of thisproject.

Thank you for the opportunity to review these documents.

Sincerely yours,

Fred D. HahnAssistant DirectorOffice of External Affairs

FDH:bjw

Attachments

pgni 2

WASHINGTON SiVAIL D E Y GW 0

HIGHWAY COMMISSIONARTMENT O HIGHWAYS

Off ico of District Engineer2809 N. Main St.. Union GapP.O. Box 52Yakima. Washington 98907

February 16, 1977

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSeattle DistrictP. 0. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124 Yakima - 11ni CGa Flood

Damane I &Attn: Mr. Dan Meredith My= Basin- Washi on

Study Manager Draft Environmental Statement

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the subject project andwish to offer the following comments:We have no objections to the basic content of the document, and have no commentson the project from the Moxee Bridge north.

South of the Moxee Bridge the river channel location is in a constant state ofchange. It is very likely in a few years the main force of the river may bedirected against a section of 1-82 that is not being riprapped under this project.The existing training dike near the northern Spring Creek culvert may under the100 year flood condition actually tend to force the water along 1-82 and increasethe erosion potential along the highway. The Draft EIS does not address itselfto this problem.

We feel the riprap section Type X shown on Plate 6 is too thin. Normally ourstandards would require 2 feet or even 3 feet of depth with an additional one footof filter material. It may be that the nature of the 1-82 embankment is such thatthe filter blanket may be omitted, but it should still be considered.

It should be emphasized that we are not objecting to the proposed project. How-ever, we are genuinely concerned that adverse impacts to the highway be kept toa mininum.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT C. SCHUSTER, P.E.District Engineer

BY: W. I. HORDAN, P.E.RCS District Location EngineerWIH' RMMLHR/bjd

Appendix 2-"7 9

Dixy Lee Ray

GOVIRNOR

COMMISSIONIRS: WASHINGTON STATEJEFF 0 DOMASKINAT.......... T P FAANS 1tk ZC3FLA'LZOrST COMMX881O0NKAY GREEN

LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER PHONE 7$3-5755AILPH E MACKEY

EUSYACE VYNNE---- omlimm w P. 0. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504

DIRECTORCHARLES H. ODEGAARD February 11, 1977

IN NPLY REFER TO:

Yakiria-Union GarFlood Damaqe

Ms. Rosemary Walrod Reduction Study -

Environmental Revief and Evaluation BrochureWashington State Department of EcoIcqy Publ'c Oraft 4-CSt. ;artins Colleqe Campus January 1977Lacpy, Washington 98504 (E-762)

Dear Ms. W-1alrod:

The Washington StaLe Parks and Recreation Commission is in receipt of theCorps of Engineers' Draft Environmental Impact Statement of this projectand offers the followinq comwents:

1. The dike project is within Yakima Sportsman State Park. StateParks is concerned about the dike on the east bank of the YakimaRiver (referred to as the left bank in the Corps' documents).

2. It is our understanding that the dike will be raised two to threefeet vertically which will cause a 10 to 15 foot horizontalincrease measured at the toe of the dike and that the widthincrease will occur on the inboard or park side of the dike.

3. We request the following:

a. That the width increase be on the outboard or river side ofthe dike. We would definitely be opposed to removinq theexisting trees and shrubs on the park side of the levee.That vegetation adds a substantial aesthetic quality tothe park.

b. That all work shall be done from the top of the dike, withno equipment operating on or across non-dike lands.

c. That a land survey he carried out by the Corps of Engineersto mark the dike easerient boundaries prior to construction.

4. If, for valid reasons, the width increase must be on the inboardor park side of the dike we request the following:

a. A landscape plan agreeable to State Parks and the Corps ofEngineers be jointly prepared prior to construction. The

Appendix 2

•4 <IBI

-;'*

o 3

Ms. Walrod -2- -bruarv 11, 1977

landscape plan should considerat a minimum, the followingitems:

(1) Drainage system with inlets and lawn(2) Stream water source and development(3) Variable levee slopes in order to break up the monotonous

appearance and steepness(4) Planting of ornamental trees to improve tree quality(5) Improve shrub planting to improve quality and wild-

life habitat(6) Assurance that the soil quality will support the land-

scape plantings as well as the erosion control grasses

State Parks also has several questions that can't be answered from Corps'documients presently in hand. They are:

1. There is a culvert under the levee with a headqate on the riverside which supplies water to a stream which flows through thepark. This is an established stream with high recreation andaesthe:ic value and is essential to the park. Will thisstructure be maintained or eliminated?

2. At the base of the existing levee fill, there is a drainageditch which normally has water in it. If this ditch is to berelocated, lawn area will be lost. It appears a tile drainsystem with surface inlets could be installed in place of theditch.

3. A large rock pile exists adjacent to the dike. It would beuseful to Parks if it were removed. Can it be used in thenew levee construction?

I am confident thdt this levee can be built to provide needed flood pro-tection and can also protect and preserve the amenities of the publicrecreation area.

We look forward to discussing these details with you in the future.

Sincerely,

David W. Heiser, ChiefEnvironmental Coordination

cs

cc: U. S. Army Corps of EngineersYakima CountyMlike Mills, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management

Appendix 2

5

C 0

D IX Y Vt RAY SJt'. D N*A , PARK & REC]REATIONr COMMISSION

JC! - MA'.V- 2 LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTMIAL CENTER PHONE 753-5755DON E hODGES

RALPH E MACKEY 0P.0. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504EUSTACE VYNNE

0|;ECTORc0:ATLES H, o~Z-A March 4, 1977

IN REPLY REFER TO:

35-992-072035-2650-1820

Draft EIS - TheColumbia River &Tributaries Study-Interim Report -

Yakima-Union GapFlood Damac. Reduction -

Yakima Basini, Wash.(Yakima SportsmanState Park)

(E-777)

TO: Mike Mills, Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management

FROM: David W.Heiser, Chief, Environmental Coordination

RE: YAKIMA-UNION GAP FLOOD REDUCTION - DRAFT EIS

On February 11, 1977 I sent you a memo on this project reflecting uponcertain data which we believed to be correct. Since that time, Mr. FrankUrabeck of the Corps of Engineers has advised Mr. Bill Bush, Chief, LongRange Planning and Research of State Parks, of the original error in thedata that Mr. Urabeck had earlier provided to m, office.

The original observation by me was:

"It is our understanding that the dike will be raised 2 to 3 feet verti-cally which will cause a 10 to 15 foot horizontal increase measured at thetoe of the dike and that the width increase will occur on the inboardor park side of the dike."

The present plan as described by Mr. Urabeck is to place .7 - 1.5 feetof fill vertically with a 3 - 5 foot (3.5 foot average) horizontal increasemeasured at the tce of the dike and that the width increase will occuron the park side of the dike.

Appendix 26

mm-

Mr. Mills -2- March 4, 1977

Apparently, to place the material on the river side of the dike wouldcost a very substantial sum in excess of the proposed action and causeother adverse effects also.

It is also our present understanding from Mr. Urabeck's verbal communi-cation that the Corps desires to remove all trees and herbaceous vege-tation on the park side of the levee, regardless whether there would beraising of the levee in that location or not. This is because the Corpsbelieves the root structure causes Jamage to the dike integrity. TheCorps would topsoil and plant to grass only. The Washington State Parksand Recreation Commission still feels that this will cause adverseeffects on the aesthetics and general character of the park.

It would seem appropriate that the "adjustments" to the physical dimen-sions which have been supplied orally by Mr. Urabeck should be docu-mented in the final EIS.

All other questions and concerns raised in my February 11, 1977 memo

remain for discussion.

vc

cc: Walter Peck, Yakima County Public Works DepartmentMark Sessinghaus, U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle DistrictFrank Urabeck, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle DistrictRosemary Walrod, Washington State Department of EcologyJan Tveten, Assistant Director, Resources Development, State ParksDennis Lundblad, Washington State Department of Ecology

I

Appendix 2

2-

YAKIMA COUNTY

CLEAN AIR AUTHORITYCOUNTY COURTHOUSE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901

January 10, 1977

Colonel John A. Poteat, District EngineerU.S. Army Engineer District, SeattleP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

Dear Sir:

We acknowledge receipt of Draft ETS re: 11akima UnionGap Flood Damage Rfeductj.

We agree with conclusions contained in Section 4.02 relatedto air quality.

In the interest of accuracy, we believe the reference toa gravel pit operation near Granger (2.49) has no relevance tothe project area air quality. This particular source is notconsidered a major source and we note that the location is south-east rather than southwest of Yakima.

In paragraph 2.50 the list of sources should be expandedto -include an asphalt batch plant locat, *.n the flood plain onproperty adjacent to the gravel crushing operation mentioned inthe draft EIS.

Again, we agree with the conclusion that the only fore-seeable air quality problems which might arise from construction ofthe levees are related to the construction period and can easilybe abated.

Sincerely,

R.L. Crdssland,Director

RIC: sd

ASSOCIATED STUDENT UNnIRSITY OFWASIINGTON

MEMORIAL UNION BUILDING, SEAITTLE, WA HNINTON 9195

March 4, 1977

Colonel John A. Poteat, District Engineer

U.S. Army Engineer District, SeattleP.O. Box C-3 755Seattle, WM 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Columbia River and

Tributary Study Interim Report D.E.I.S. for the ima River Basin, Wash..

We hope the following coments will be of some use to you when writing

the final E.I.S..

1.08 - Several times the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service isnoted as contributing reccendations under consideration.What are these reccmnridations? How would they affect theenvironment, or the outcome of the project? We supportthe interactions involved, but feel the results shouldbe included for adequate public review.

1.09 - What is the impact of this excavation?1.13 In each case, less material is returned than is removed.1.25

1.34 - Appendix F should have been included in the D.E.I.S..We understand that this is a revised version, but to cmitthe benefit cost analysis seens inappropriate. It isimpossible to accurately assess the economic outlay ofthe project with the information provided. What are theproject costs based on? How were the figures arrived at?

1.35 How long will construction last? On what do you base yourstatement, "alleviation of local unemployment would con-stitute a benefit to the local area and national economics"?What economic impact will occur when construction is ccmpleted?Will there be any permanent jobs created? If so, we hopelocal people will be used to fill these spots.

P. 13 Table 1 What are the project costs based on?

F23 J

2 I

2.06 On what do you base your statement, "should the project beauthorized and completed, the area would probably retainits agricultural zoning with only a small increase in thenumber of barns and mobile homes"?

2.51 - Have 100 and 200 year flood determinations been establishedsubsequent to Bureau of Reclamation storage facilities?

2.55 - Since levees will interrupt the natural reservoir action ofa flood plain, flooding downstream can be expected to increase.How large would damages downstream be fram this phencmenon, andit they were not included in the benefit/cost analysis, why?

2.58 - What is "significant damage"? How did you arrive at thesefigures?

2.67 - What would be the ccnsequences if the Bumping Lake proposalis not activated?

2.86 - Section 101 (b) 2 of the National Envirormntal Policy Actpoints out the need for culturally pleasing, as well as prod-uctive surroundings. This is certainly a difficult task tobear, hoever it appears nothing has been done to further thepossibility of important & valuable archaelogical findings sinceApril 8, 1974. Has funding been sought since then? If not, why?If any pre-historic or historic sites are found on the projectsite, how would it affect the project? would excavation beallowed? The investigations in Appendix E indicate a strongpossibility that cultural artifacts do exist at the site.

3.03 - The levees will be within 200 feet of O.H.W., do not providepublic access to the xiver, and alter the existing characterof the area. Why is the levee not in conflict with conservancydesignation 'when "activities and uses of a non-person naturewhich do not substantially degrade the existing character ofan area" (Dept. of Ecology guidelines) are favored?

6.02 - How was the figure $465,900 arrived at?

6.07 - How "substantial" are existing flood problems?

6.08 - We support the Army Corps of Engineers decision not to enlarge6.12 the reservoir system.

P. C-2 - Will the habitat of the "rare butterfly" be altered? We feelthis deserves more attention than it has received. We supportthe consultation with the Dept. of Gare, but do not see any tinespent to mitigate a potential problem. Is the area referred tothe Moxee Bog? Will the hydrology affect the area?

E-.. 2-4IlHi.....

-A

3

We hope these comuents will be of sae use, and appreciate the oppor-

tunity to commt on the Columbia River & Tributaries Study D.E.I.S..

If you have any questions or crments please contact me at the ASUW

Envirormental Affairs Cuiission, 543-8700 or 543-8634.

Sincerely,

n Seyfried, Co-ordinator

Darcey FugmanAnne Mac Donald

Lynn Marek-Schooley

Impact Assessment Program

ASUW FAC

cc Chris Pearson, ASLU President

JS/bg

A- me

A- .A

RIobert Card5,20 Crothers Mlemorial hallSianford, CA. 94305

22 Februarty 1977

iobert G. (0ardR~oute 4 box 153Yakima, 4a. 98908

Col. John A. Poteat. District EngineerU.6. Army iUngineer Jlstrict,SeattleP.O. Box 0-37'35,-

D~ear 2.o1. i'otcat:

Thian'k you for giving me the opportuni tyj Lo cc,;rment on the dr.aftenvironmental impact statement for the Yakima-LUnion (zap r'loodDamagle ieductil)n ;Ludy.

I woul 1 like to commnd the Uz>rps -'or prepariaC wriat -a-ppea-rS to)be a t'voughtful and ohe.'Lvu &1j. -ree fcormat used greatlyfaciitated my review whtcn flncludedu the ent're statement indetail. I apuroacned the review --.; an erhv1,.ri:::ir-ntt. engineerand a cit i:en of' the cor.:m'nlt.y. concernefd f-r its s'iclal andeconr, ic welfa-r. For y~rcoinvonience 1' nave numbered eachs.!ecif ic review comment. i hope;- tia iu j u ". J I f Ind the f ollowi ntcorwfler:;3 u:!'. i l. In eLa: ~ the "Irk I. .: I

1. * herp w.,.-: ri ment:,; ir. Uifhe zl-;e- i ~ ab.)ut tuossiz tile down-ztream impacts of the orJ,'.ct either wi t2 th!. normal flows orthe project desIgn fi.rcyi 1 )ws of' t aklma i-,Iver. ThEpotentlal i-npac.ts of tnis type of !)rojc' are Increased a1 ;gred-atin nr (legredation )f the downstream r~ver btd and increasesin the magnitude of flood flows experienced by the L,,.wer- YakimaValle~y. WhiIc, In thi-;- case, tnese 1.ftaotf; m- ybe s:I . Istii L t'.hWilk tha.t the r>tentlally affected p-ouulatlon riescricist-) '- r the Corps' posi Lion on t-1S 3~Vt

2. In pari-r'aph 2.r)) sev.eral otn-r- Io~SbL kee Trj .ctts .nthe .r.tieh2oare mentioned. Ln~ev:, .;&ze ar*e .- ;t,,atu-rnenta ln the E-T dtescr! 17 the broad ., W r1 Tp:t.o -)f thewhole ;3y.3tem anc, the fak ml --Unn1 ap ~ (o' '.t~:tthese !.inricts. F'or t.in1 :ic- vro)posed --rojei:W iia::act on

anadrom:)JS L 1-h may be smaA' n s ia rl,/tr exliO: todi-tQ :-ut larGeIf the wnol 1ev ,e system Is OUiItL. C )m , nt... t -,e 1i wl ' -"I .

degredatirn due to a I.-c~k )f ..aidrsLand',., of tioe overal~l program.

3. i~rn wis n,- iti -iale gvnt- th.e sel. c*.tl-o.- a:he 100 anld200 y( tr reLurn penlal fli. fJ-s a, tih ldesigL-n valut;.. Ibis selecti.)his a -!,u.'-r n .ton the size of tiA. pr' %Vrt.. 2her,,ore, amernt.o)n of why .ncse a4UC ; ocse to I,,Arerr or smnaller onm'.swere chosen wou*.d be info r'iatlve.

4. Paragraph 4.08 did not mention the potential interruption ofanadromous fish runs during construction due to disturbances inthe river. These impacts could be minimized by careful projectscheduling coordinated with the Washington State Fish and GameDepartment.

5. Paragraph 4.42 is not specific enough in describing theimpact on the peregrine falcon community. At a minimum, thebird's nesting site(s) and routine travel patterns (if any)should be identified. If this is done then ornithologistscould more objectively describe the impacts of the project'sshort and long-term effects on the bird's behavior.

o. Paragraph 4.16 did not mention social costs associated withthe project. The river has a potential for becoming a focalpoint of day to day community recreational activity. It isparticularly valuable in this respect due to its proximity tolow incoine neighborhoods. Many of these people do not have theresources to travel to find recreation so anything that hinderstheir access to the river should be considered in that light.Both j;)od and harmful effects in this regard were alluded toelsewhere in th- statement. iowever, a statement in thisparagraph suamarizing the project's impact on the public'sfutirr, access to, and enjnyment of the river woild be valuableto the local sponsor and other concerned citizens.

7. Paragraph 4.21 did not describe eitner the additional lossto land owners due to crianges in channelation or changes Inflood characteristics (eg. sediment transport) due to the leveeconstructlon. I refer specifically to the unprotected landacross the river from Union Gap. Also there may be a cost asso-ciated with poorer access to the land inside the levees and areduction In property values. These costs, if they exist, shouldbe included in the benefit cost analysis. The possible chanj;esin fl',od characteristics may also have lon--term impacts on thebiotic community.

8. Paragraph 4.09 describes the impacts of expanding borrowpits as "minimal or insignificant". The excavation of 208,700cubic yards of earth material will leave a 13 acre, 10 foot deephole. if the site is near a city, as stated, it is difficult tosee how this comprises a ilnimal impact. Most people experiencingthe n,)Ise and lust from a gravel excavating and processingoperation would describe it as highly negative.

9. Much of the proposed levee protecting the Yakima wastewatertreatment plant involves excavation and/or cackfill in the river.Was the less environmentally damaging and jerhaps less costlyalternative of a more localized levee around the plant itselfexamined? I think that an argunent for or against this proposalshould be presented in the final statement.

10. I wish to note here that the Keith & Keith funeral chapel(paragraph 2.25) is a recent structure that was approved by theCounty with full knowledge of its position on the flood plain.Including damage reduction for this facility as a benefit has

F-2_7

* page 3

the effect of allowing the owner and county to cover up unwiseflood plain management. Using this type of practice any federalflood control project can eventually be justified from a benefit-cost perspective. If the current benefit cost-ratio is less thanone all that the county has to do is allow building in the floodplain until the benefit of protectinL; the new construction exceedsthe cost of the flood control project.

11. The statement in paragraph 4.12 about the 2000 unemployedagricultural workers is misleading. Many other local, unionprotected, construction workers are typically out of work duringthe winter. Therefore, if there is levee construction duringthe winter it is highly unlikely that any significant number ofthese agricultural workers will be employed on the project.

12. The costs of operation and maintenance listed in the tableon page 13 do not conform to historical data. In the past, YakimaCounty has spent several thousand dollars annually on leveemaintenance. This money was spent primarily on brush clearingthrough trie county's student summer employment program. I suggestthat the Corps obtain historical data from the county and reviseits cost figures accordingly.

13. The benefit-cost analysis (page 13-14) is weak in that thecriteria for estimating costs is not explained and environmentalcosts as recognized in the statement were not quantified andincluded. This section of the statement is probably one of themost important and debatable but it is one of the sections leastreinforced by presentations of data and methodology. Havingsome experience in cost estimating, I know that the criteria andassumptions used are often quite subjective. Therefore, I thinkthat at least a cursory summary of your procedure would beappropriately included in the final statement.

14. I rvte'i two other details which I mention here in case theywere missed in your review.

1. Parirph 2.02, line 5 should read "... Between 1970 and..."2. The 24 inch-diameter pressure limeas shown on plate 5 when

comparei with plate 3 does not corres,ond to the functionaldescription given in paragraph 1.19. As shown the inletis not above the 100 year flood level.

Thank you t .r y)ur consideration and cooperation.

"incerely

Robert Card

F..8

APPENDIX G

LETTERS RECEIVED ON

REVISED DRAFT STATEMENT

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

4 osrW EREGION X

1; 1200 SIXTH AVENUESEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

REPLY TO

AN O: M/S 443 MAR 6

Lieutenant General J. W. MorrisChief of EngineersDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

We have reviewed the revised draft environmental statement on theYakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction project.

We feel that the project changes covered in the revised statementwill not greatly influence the environmental impacts of the project.These project changes include longer and higher levees downstream ofMoxee bridge to accommodate a 200-year flood, and more riprapping ofexisting levees. Revegetation and landscaping will now be considereda normal design aspect, instead of project mitigation. The effects ofincreased cost-sharing recommended under the President's new waterresources policy are not addressed in the revised statement.

We support the Corps of Engineers plan to work closely with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the state conservation agencies duringthe post-authorization planning. We hope that this coordination andinput will reduce both the short-term impacts of increased turbidityduring construction, and the long-term impacts of vegetation removaland replacement.

The Environmental Protection Agency has rated this draft environmentalstatement LO-1 (LO - Lack of Objections; I - Adequate Information). Therating will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with ourresponsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federalactions under section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft environmental statement.

Sincerely,

Alexandra B. Smith, ChiefEnvironmental Evaluation Branch

United States Department of the InteriorOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

PEP ER 79/36

Lieutenant General J. W. MorrisChief of EngineersDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D. C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

We have reviewed the proposed report of the Chief of Engineersand the revised draft environmental statement for Yakima-UnionGap, Flood Damage Reduction, Yakima County, Washington asrequested in your letter dated December 28, 1978. Severalcomments and suggestions are offered for your consideration.

Chief of Engineers' Report

It appears that the project may have recreation potentialthat will not be realized through this proposal. The projectis located within the Yakima River Greenway, for which amaster plan is now available. The extent of considerationgiven to recreation as a project purpose is not apparent fromthe subject document. Notwithstanding the past considerationwhich may have occurred, it now appears that recreationagencies within the project area are interested in discussingthe recreation possibilities of the project.

The urban location of the flood control proposal gives it aspecial emphasis for multiple use. The National Urban Policy,announced by the President on April 3, 1978, includes a strongcommitment to focus existing Federal programs into the urbanareas of the Nation. The President proposes to use "...agenciestraditionally not involved in urban policy, such as the DefenseDepartment,...to make their actions more supportive of urbanareas.t"

Given the new national e- and the changing conditions inthe project area, we re -.,a that local recreation agenciesbe contacted to re-examine the addition of recreation as aproject purpose.

2

Revised Draft Environmental Statement

Project Description

In August of 1978 we were advised by the Seattle District staffthat the Board of Engineers had recommended the project beapproved but with modifications. These modifications includedincreasing the levee height along the entire length of the rightand left bank levees downstream of Moxee Bridge and increasingthe amount of riprap along these two levees. Our field reviewindicated that the modifications would amount to a significantincrease in previously identified fish and wildlife losses andthat a reanalysis of fish and wildlife aspects would be re-quired.

By a letter dated October 4, 1978, to the District Engineer,our Fish and Wildlife Service recommended, among other things,that we be given the opportunity during the post authorizationphase (advanced engineering and design) to reassess fish/wildlifelosses and to develop a new and more comprehensive habitatrestoration plan. We understand that, if the project is author-ized, the Corps will make every opportunity available to accom-plish our recommendations during the post authorization phase.

With respect to a mitigation plan, we believe that a good plandeveloped by fish and wildlife agencies, if implemented, wouldserve to realize some of the goals alluded to in paragraph 11of the Board of Engineers' Report, which is to minimize oreliminate any long-term impact to fish and wildlife.

It should be recognized, depending on final levee detailsdeveloped in the design phase, that the $117,000 habitat restor-ation cost, identified in paragraph 18 of the Board's Report,may be too low.

It is important to note that setback features of the levees arehighly important and the Fish and Wildlife Service will insiston these features to protect wildlife values.

Archeological, Historical, and Unique Scenic Resources, Pages31, 32

The revised draft statement does not note that the State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted regarding cultural

- -

3

resources; however, a letter from the SHPO is included inAppendix E. It is indicated in the statement that a preliminarycultural resources investigation was conducted and that priorto construction, a comprehensive prehistoric and historic surveywould be made of the project area. The statement further indi-cates that the National Register of Historic Places has beenconsulted and there are no sites on the register within theproject area. We recommend that if artifactual material isencountered during construction, the State Office of Archeologyand Historic Preservation should be contacted for considerationof an archeological salvage program.

Recreational Resources

Page 40, paragraph 4.30, states "Should the Freeway Park berealized, it is likely that the proposed new levees and therehabilitated levees would form much of the park boundary andcould be used as trails linking most of the park together."Local officials have recently expressed interest in discussingthe possibility of cost sharing in the development of a systemof trails along the proposed project levees. We believe therevised draft environmental impact statement should be expandedto reflect this new possibility for use of project resources.

Long-Term Fish Impacts (page 43)

It is stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service no longer hasconfidence in estimates of losses for angler days. It shouldalso be pointed out that the reason for this is due to changesin the project, as recommended by the Corps at a late date, tochanges in habitat use and value, and to an increased demandfor consumptive and nonconsumptive fish and wildlife orientedrecreation.

Page 58, last sentence

The bald eagle has been given official threatened status in theState of Washington since publication of the Corps' feasibilityreport and revised draft EIS. Some birds have been observedoccasionally within the project area. The peregrine falcon isknown to use the project site. Because of this, consultation un-der Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act should be iniatedimmediately.

We hope these comments will be of assistance to you.'7n ce re

Larr E. Meierotto.,' SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250

Lieutenant General J. W. Morris APR 30 1979Chief of EngineersOffice of the Chief of EngineersArmy Corps of EngineersU.S. Department of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

This is in reply to Colonel Thorwald R. Peterson's letter of December 28,

1978. We have reviewed the proposed report on Yakima-Union Gap, Washington,together with other pertinent reports and the revised draft environmentalimpact statement (EIS). These reports propose local flood protection con-sisting of improvement of existing levees, construction of new levees,installation of flood control structures, and flood plain management toprovide flood protection for approximately 3,300 acres.

Based on 1976 prices, first costs of the proposed improvements are estimatedat $3,970,000, of which $76,000 would be non-Federal. The benefit to costratio, computed at 6 3/8 percent, is 1.9. Recommendations by the Board ofEngineers for Rivers and Harbors, including higher level of protection of aportion of the flood plain, would raise first project cost to $5,168,000 andresuilt in a benefit ratio of 1.6. Changes in cost sharing provisions toconform to requirements under current policy would raise the non-Federalcontributicn to the first costs of project installation to 25 percent. Therevised benefit to cost estimates are given in table 1 of the EIS and shouldalso be displayed in the main report and appendix F.

It is suggested page 33 of the main report state explicitly that benefitswere calculated using alternative 2, "flood plain management alone," as the"without project" future, rather than alternative 1 "do nothing."

The first paragraph on page 34 should be clarified. As written, it appearsthat reduction in flood insurance premium payments were considered a nationalbenefit rather than a reduction of transfer payment to distribute flood losses.Also, on page F-15, flood damages are described as including losses in salesor revenue and loss of wages. Such evaluations can easily be double countedsince loss of gross revenue from sales includes the wage component. In somesituations these losses are partially recovered through increased productionafter the flood in order to meet backlogged demand. As written, it is notclear if these items were allowed for in the calculations.

The level B study, referred to on page 18, is now complete. Also, a USDAcooperative river basin study regarding sediment erosion from irrigated crop-lands is scheduled for completion in mid-1979.

Lieutenant General J. W. Morris 2

It would appear appropriate that table 4 on page.20 of the draft EIS includethe many acres of meandering river and associated wildlife lands (photo onpage 27 of interim report).

We appreciate your including Soil Conservation Service's comments to aprevious draft and hope these comments are helpful.

Sincerely,

6o-

-- ... .'"' ° ' ' °

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEThe Assistant secretary for PolicyWashington, D.C. 20230

March 26, 1979

Lieutenant General J. W. MorrisChief of EngineersDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

The Department of Commerce has reviewed your proposedreport on the Yakima-Union Gap, Washington together withthe interim report concerning flood damage reduction inthe Yakima River Basin.

We have no substantive comments to make on thesedocuments.

Thank you verymuch for the opportunity given to usto make this review.

Ses W. Curlin

puty Assistant Secretary

for Policy

for Polic

DEPARTMENT OF TR'NSPORTATIONMAILING ADDRESS;

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD US COAST GUARD ,-EP-7/73)PHONE: 202-426-3300

* 16476/7.b 549

14 FEB 1979

-Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerU. S. Army Engineer District, SeattleP.O. Box C-3755Seattle, Washington, 98124

Dear Colonel Poteat:

On behalf of the U. S. Department of Transportation the concernedoperating administrations and staff of the U. S. Coast Guard havereviewed the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement forYakima-Union Gap Interim Report, Flood Damage Reduction. We haveneither comments no objections to offer regarding this proposal.

The opportunity to review the Revised Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for Yakima-Union Gap Interim Report, Flood Damage Reductionis greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

..................- ........ .,I;,-c~

(:~::v2 ~ .~~i174"M~ Br

jI55\

11' a law vecan live with.

January 2, 1980

office of Commnunity Planning locand 'evelopment

Lieutenant General J. W. MorrisChief of EngineersDepartment of the Army.Washington, D.C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

r'c: Chief of Engineers Report on Yakimna-Union Gap,Washington and Related Reports

We have reviewed the pronosed report of the Chief ofEngineers on Yakima-Union Gap, Washington, other pertinentreports and a revised draft environmental impact statementsubmitted with your letter of Decemnber 28, 1978.

We have no cor.ntructive comments to offer.

Thiank yuu for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

robert C. ScaliaDirectorReqional Office of CPD

10C/lilliland:iq 1/2/80

... ..

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGYWASHINGTONo .w,,,9 n zWAHN T NOlympia. W!nbrngton 9&5iO4 206/753 2800

Dixy Lee RayGovernor

March 23, 1979

.ieutenant General J. W. MorrisChief of EngineersDepartment of the ArmyWashington, D. C. 20314

Dear General Morris:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposedreport of the Chief of Engineers and other pertinent reportsfor the Yakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction Project.The State of Washington strongly supports the proposed projectand looks forward to working with the Corps of Engineersduring the post-authorization phase. We do wish to expressour great concerns over the application of the President'sproposed cost sharing policy at this advanced stage of projectplanning. State agencies have some additional informationand concerns which are outlined below for your information andConsideration.

1. The Department of Transportation is planning improve-ments to SR 82 which will fall within the proposedCorps project area. Since you may not be aware of'these plans, we have enclosed the improvement plans

* for your information.

2. The Parks and Recreation Commission is concernedthat failure to plant trees and shrubs on the in-board dike face will result in severe aestheticdegradation within Yakima Sportsmans State Park.This concern has been raised several times duringthe planning stage of this project, but no agreementbetween the Corps and the Parks Commission has-yetbeen reached. The'Seattle District Office of theCorps of Engineers has indicated it will coordinatethe formulation of an acceptable landscape restora-tion plan with the Commission during post-authoriza-tion planning. We hope that an agreement will bereached at that time.

3. The Department of Fisheries has indicated that anywork done in the river will requirc! a hydraulicpermiit.

, 6-Il

A.

• . • . -

Letter to Lieutenant General MorrisPage twoMarch 23, 1979

4. The Department of Game has indicated it has com-ments and will forward them directly to your officeas soon as they are completed.

The comment letters received from the state agencies'are enclosed for your information. If you have any questions,please contact the appropriate state agency or Barbara Jansenof our Environmental Review Section, at (206) 753-6892.

Yours

tu

ilurGlallauer

Director

WGH:as

Enclosures

cc: Gordon Sandison, DirectorDepartment of Fisheries

, Jan Tveten, Assistant DirectorParks and Recreation Commission

Sheila Stump, Office of Archaeologyand Historic Preservation

Wm. P. Albohn, Department of TransportationBarbara Jansen, Department of Ecology

vX'eattle District Corps of Engineers -

1

G-I.

STATE OFSO. "'*WASNGTO .DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONWASHINGT.ON.'' H,., ., ,,,,,," .O,, .w ,o. a., oe ec

Dixy Lee RayHqhway Adrnstrdion DuJidan. 0,m'pwa. Washington 99UA 2O6/7SI4GMDixy Lee Ray ,,

Governor " -GoucenIrEB " , February 7, 1979

Ms. Barbara Jansen, Environmental Review SectionDepartment of EcologySt. Martins CollegeOlympia, Washington 98504

Department of EcologyYakima-Union Gap Flood Damage ReductionRevised Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Jansen:

We have reviewed the subject document and are in support of the proposedproject because it will preserve the structural integrity of the Interstate•Highway roadway. We do have the following additional comments concerningthe document:

In the Interim Report on the project on page 53 and 54 under the subject"Cost Apportionment", it irdicates the Department is responsible for main-

*tenance, operation and replacement costs of $500 annually. It should beclarified in the document this money represents normal and routine main-tenance of slopes along SR 82 to be accomplished by the Department's main-tenance forces. Costs over and above those considered routine must beobtained from other sources.

.The Department, in our letter dated February 16, 1977, expressed someconcern regarding the depth of rip rap to be pTaced on the roadwvay slopes.The Department cannot recommend approval of construction plans until ourhydraulics section can review design computations.

The Department is planning to improve SR 82 by construction of a connectionto SR 97 in the vicinity of Union Gap. This proposed improvement will fallwithin the limits of the subject proposal. The proposed highway projectis not shown on any of the maps or plans in the document. .Attached for tlecorps information are plans of the planned highway improvement.

Any references to the State Highway Department should be changed to the

Washington State Department of Transportation.

Sincerely,

ROBERT S. HIIELSENAs~it~mtSccrctar"/

Public Transportation and Planning

RSII:y%- Environmental PlannerWPA: uBHcc: R. C. Schuster 1

STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIC..WASHINGTON 7150 CleanIter Lae. Olympa. Wa0,ugon 9&%4 20's;5sDixy Lee Ray

January 22, 1979

TO: Ms. Barbra JansenState of WashingtonDepartment of EcologyEnvironmental Review SectionOlympia, Washington 98504

FROM: Jan Tveten, Assistant Director \,7 . "

Washington State Parks and §Ation Commission

SUBJECT: Yakima - Union Gap, Interim Report. Columbia River andTributaries Study, Flood Damage Reduction, Yakima RiverBasin, Washington AND Revised Draft Environmental ImpactStatement Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer District,Seattle, Washington, 1978.

I have reviewed the above noted documents and find that they do not containa detailed evaluation of the application of Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-301,LANDSCAPE PLANTING AT FLOODWALLS, LEVEES AND EMBANYMENT DAMS. Further, itappears that no plantings of shrubs or trees shall be permitted on theinboard face of the dike.

On January 12, 1978, Mr. David Heiser of State Parks requested in a letterto the Chairman of the Board of Engineers for Ri-vers and Harbors, thefollowing:

In addition, we request that the Corps include in the interimreport and environmental. impact statement, a detailed evaluationof the application of Engineer I..anual N. ETL 110-2-301 [Now E141110-2-301] by the Corps of Enqineers (ongineering and DesignLANDSCAPE PLATING AT FLOODAALLS, LEVEFS AND E1,BANKIEIT DA14S)

including a justification for not providing Zandscaping"plantings ([other than grass]) within Yakimn Sportsnn State Parkif the Corps insists on not providing landscape plantings (otherthan grass) within this recreation area.

On March 30, 1978, Mr. Dwain F. Hogan of the Corps of Engineers stated in aletter to Mr. Heiser of Parks the following:

Ms.-.Barbra Jansen -2- January 22, 1979

*As a part of future coordination and post-authorization planning('detailed planning") we will consider a variety of landscaperestoration measures, including a scheme utilizing groupings oftrees and shrubs.

I have reviewed the above noted documents and find that no reasonable meansto adequately landscape the dike within Yakima Sportsman S'ate Park isavailable. Only plantings of various grasses appear to be possible giventhe parameters spelled out in the Interim Report and Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. Therefore-, any mutually prepared landscape plan preparedby Parks and the Corps during the "post-authorization planning" stage(detailed planning") cannot include schemes utilizing groupings of treesand shrubs if the Interim Report and Revised Draft Environmental ImpactStatement are not revised.

If there is to be no allowance for tree and shrub planting on the inboardface of the dike within Yakima Sportsman State Park, then please make itclear in the Interim Report and Environmental Statements that any "jointlandscape plan" prepared by Corps and Parks in the future will beconsidered within extremely limited parameters that were established uni-laterally by the Corps without the concurrence of Parks and that the narrewparameters preclude the possibility of trees and shrub planting. Further,please understand that it is the judgment of the professional planningstaff of state parks, the owner and public recreation manager of the land,that the failure to plant trees and shrubs on the inboard dike face willresult in severe esthetic degradation within Yakima Sportman State Park.

Incidentally, to bring you up-to-date on the status of the proposed ease-ment for the dike, I have enclosed a copy of the last communicationregarding that easement. Parks has not yet heard back from Yakima CountyPublic Works.

Enclosure

cc: Dwain F. Hogan P.E. Colonel John A. PoteatChief, Planning Branch District EngineerDepartment of the Army Seattle DistrictSeattle District, Corps Corps of Engineersof Engineers 4735 E. Marginal Way S.

P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98134Seattle, WA 98124

Division EngineerResident Verlher U. S. Army Engineer Division,[;o rd of Efirl.:mc tr," North Pa', i cRivers and Harbors P. 0. Box 2870

Kingman Building Portland, OR 97208Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Bo

A.a

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIESWASHINGTON 15wa mim s m Budd. Olwpm. Washm on &r.W5

Dixv Let RayGmwrnor

February 13, 1979

Barbara JansenDepartment of EcologyOlympia, Washington 98504

Dear Barbara:

We have reviewed the draft EIS for the Yakima-Union Gap FloodDamage Reduction Study and find that the project will have noapparent significant detrimental impacts on the salmon resource.

Any work which will actually be performed in the river will, ofcourse, require a Hydraulic Permit.

Sincerely,

Gordon Sandi.Director

knm "

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF GAMEWASHINGTON 60D Nonh Cvdal Wa/O!1p, Wahington W544 2Wj753-SM0

Dix Lee RayGoveror

March 30, 1979

Colonel John A. PoteatDistrict EngineerU. S. Army Engineer District, SeattlePost Office Box C-3755Seattle, Washington 98124

RE: Yakima-Union Gap Flood Damage Reduction RevisedDraft EIS

Dear Colonel Poteat:

Your document has been reviewed by our staff asrequested; our comments follow. Please forgive ourlate response.

A great deal of preparation is apparent in sectionsof this EIS dealing with impacts on fish and wildlife.However, several points appear to have been neglected,which we will address below.

Pp 7-1.32: Removal of burrowing animals is not dis-cussed beyond this section. In most instances these wouldbe furbearers such as muskrats. How will these be taken,and by whom? Will losses of these animals be mitigated?

PP 10 - Table 1: We wondered how the figure of $4,200a year in Unmitigated Fish and Wildlife Costs was derived.How many animals are involved? We would like to point outthat fish and wildlife increase dramatically in value asthey become more scarce.

pp 16-2.29: A fourth area important to hunters, whichwould be impacted by the proposal, is Moxee Game Reserve.It holds duck populations which contribute about 12,000waterfowl to the Yakima County total harvest of between60,000 to 100,000 waterfowl yearly. The approximately12,000 waterfowl contributed to this total from Moxee Re-serve indicate about 10,000 man/days of hunting, worth about$261,000 economically, based on direct spending.

Ep 30-2.79: This riparian bottomland habitat may bedescribed as unique in Yakima County.

G-17

Page 2 March 30, 1979Colonel John Poteat

p 33-3.03: You state rehabilitation of existinglevees-and construction of new levees set back from theriver channel, should not be in conflict with the county'sdesignation as "conservancy" in its shoreline master pro-ramnwhich includes most of the Yakima River shorelinerom Selah Gap to Union Gap. We feel this would dependgreatly on the location of the levees, proposed alternatives,and development encouraged by security generated by theexistance of new levees.

pp 37-4.16: A discussion of long-term economic andsocial impacts should address economic impacts to recreation.This can be calculated to a good degree of accuracy from man-days impacts.

pe 39-40-4.25: There are no guarantees that land usecontrols and restrictions will not change. Present controlsdo not restrict intensification of agriculture or construc-tion of buildings or other structures related to agriculture.Gravel mining permits are also available.

pp 41- 4 .3l: This paragraph seems to sidestep the factthat the reason present levees are being raised, and new onesconstructed, is to provide security from flood damage so moreintense land use can be developed. Sections 4.17 through4.25 discuss long-term economic and social benefits, but donot address the social and economic costs of these actions interms of losses of wildlife oriented outdoor recreation.

pp 41-434: There are no guarantees that these hund-reds o acres of flood-plain land will remain unprotectedfrom periodic flooding, and therefore in a low state of deve-lopment compatible with wildlife. We cannot assess impactsto wildlife on this basis.

pp 41-4.36: Natural vegetation behind the dike willalso be lost due to more intensive land use, both residentialand agricultural. Benefits to wildlife habitat resulting fromperiodic flooding will also be lost. These benefits includeweed seed deposition, aluvial fertilization from silt deposits,insect food supplies, and protection for natural vegetationand space from development.

pp 42-43-4.42: Again, this section does not addresswildlife losses behind the dikes, losses from encroachmenton Moxee Reserve, or losses of burrowing animals.

r -A -- -.

Page 3 March 30, 1979Colonel John Poteat

pp 48-5.04: Adverse Environmental Effects whichcannot be avoided should have included impact on water-fowl, shorebirds, doves and others from loss of flatshorelines. Mitigation proposals for diking will notoffset losses discussed in 5.02.

pp 53-7.0: The productivity of this proposal assumesprotection of "private residences, businesses, agriculturallands and public facilities". Project benefits are basedon these features. Fish, wildlife, recreation and waterquality costs were not measured against these benefits be-cause of present zoning restrictions, but the benefits can-not accrue without assessing these environmental costs ofdevelopment, which result from the security of improved andexpanded levees.

The possibility that the utility of Moxee Reserve wouldbe lost if it were converted from wet pasture to row croppingwas not addressed, nor was the cost of waterfowl depredation.This depredation could occur if row cropping or other moreintensive agriculture replaced wet pasture in all or partof Moxee Reserve or other areas on the affected flood plain.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your document.

We hope our comments are helpful.

Sincerely,

THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME

Douglass A. Pineo, Applied EcologistHabitat Management Division

DP:mjf

G-19

A.-

STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATIONWASt1NGTON ,,I West T'wnty First Avenue. 01,,pia. W.ashing'n 9 804 201753 4011

Dixy Lee Ray

Gov*,or March 6, 1979

Ms. Barbara JansenEnvironmental ReviewDepartment of Ecology

Dear Ms. Jansen:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the Corps of Engineer's Yakima-Union GapFlood Damage Reduction Project.

A staff review of items 2.85 - 2.89 and 4.45 regarding culturalresources has been completed. We concur with the proposal toconduct a comprehensive prehistoric and historic resourcessurvey of the project area. The potentila for the presence ofcultural resources in the area has been quite adequately recognizedand addressed.

Thank you for your consideration of our cultural heritage.

Sincerely,

JEANNE M. WELCH, Deputy State

Historic Preservatio O.Qfficer

Sheila A. Stump, Archaeologist

sm

G-2o

vakimna count, washington

BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERSDistrict One -District Two District Three

LES CONRAD GRAHAM TrOLLEFSON CHARISJ A LA RICOYChatrmen

Ma)Lch 23, 1979

J. W. movzizLieutenant Genvcat, USAVepa~tinent o6 Ai~VunCc-rtp o6 Eng.ineeuWaington, D. C. 20314

Vea'z GeneAat MoAutL6:

The Bocvui o6 Yakimna County Corn -6,ionve, wiZ6he6 to advize you that we 6autysuppoAt the Yakim&a-UniZon Gap Levee Ptoject. We have 'teviewed the p'topozed,tepo'tt o6 the Chiej oj Engi.neez, the othvz. pextinen~t 'tepout6 and the 'LevZ~eddka~.t envi&tonnenta2 imnpac~t statemnen~t ttan6nlZtted by Cotonet Petexuon ,6 undatedtetteA and tevicewed by u,6 on Januaty 16, 1979.

OWL de.6ijte i,6 that the 'tepot't be Joh~watded to Con g'ie,6 6o.'z theiA' con4Zidewa-tion a,6 soon a,6 po6zibZe. Yakima County Z6 wUZLtng to paxucpate in theptwject and pu.vide att necae6oy item6s o6 tocat zjronao~4hp a6 'teqiaed bycongyrestionat tegi.6ation. We wtdeutand that the PteaLdent'h6 cozt-ahaAingp.topo.sat is under. contideAoat'on but woutd tLequte cong4ea,6ionat enactmentbe~o-te any modZjication6 would be made to ou4 ptevibouty ag4eed upon 6pon6o/L-Ahip. It mu~t be noted that tuch enactment woutl have the ej6ect oj maingOWL 6utthvr . ponisoiuip impoa&LbZe.

ThZ6 i.6 an .&mpottant ptoject to Yakima County and ha6 been 6 eveuto yeoau indevetopment. Conside~ab~e time and ejo't have been expended, and we hopethat the tepoxt witZ be t .n6rnitted to the Congte6. ptzomptly.

Since'kty,

GTlit LC'ofl4Mmecc: Mike McCo~mick

Govevnotr Dixie Lee Ray

ROOM 416 COURTHOUSE TELEPHONr- (509) 57564111 YAKI(MA. WASHINGTON 98901

TOLL F RE E 1.800 572 7354

COWS OF ENGINIER

~ C CORPS OF ENGINEERS LEVEEti % PROJECT AUTHORiZED 1950

WNil .NA 'C i, E E\ NA T 1 0 NA 1.

-1-

r'~ol f"hel I- (I E S T 1.efP.

'S.pd PRJCPCNTU

P8 .- Priest

dalet' ?Ixr tiy~/0

Ahqitn X0 ELbrtvare

Wapato1 Rasto Ro'v LR.

Iita r4e~-

77 ~ Wht Sa

(2i 11rrePEeki IGE

Thorps

S N IQI' A 1 NItI

ELLENSBUR10IA-

KLCfiIATeUy 4

U. S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS LEVEEPROJECT AUTHORIZED 950

tA tf W

:co

VICINITY MAP

LEGEND

POTENTIAL STORAGE SITESCONSIDERED FOR ALTERNATIVEOF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENTWITH ADDITIONAL UPSTREAM

STORAGE:

Y~ F7ULNG 'ENTERI

CORPS OF ENGINEERS LEVEEPROJECT CONSTRUCTED 1947-48

COUNTY

Priest Uapid * STUDY AREA

40'4/

HANFORD Q, North lichland

r j WCORPS OF ENGINEERS LEVEES-n Cyty PROJECT CONSTRUCTED 1962

~~~~- tn Ctyihand -,randview ions i?. ODP C ..

i ch Is'ndU. S. ARMY IMNI= DIIlhKT, StAlruWestRihadCRSO

SEATL. WAuNWiOMM

YAKIMA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

f " BASIN MAPSC ALF IN M IL ES wO SL o

- -1 :"; D-8-4-257

TERRACEHEIGHTS B

'S4

12 -

200 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT (DOWNSTREAM

WITHOUT PROJECT

: / EE BRIDGE

SPORTSMEN

-NNWN

IB

• _ BURLINGTON NORTH N RR. B'

UNINAFI R EN

PLANT

MOXEESR.)WASHINGTON

YAKIMNINGAP

YAKIMA RIVEP DRAINAGE BASIN

LEGEND

EXISTING RECOMMENDED

Slliii I I I IlEVEE

( . - CULVERT

I GATE

-4 CULVERT W/GATE

RIP RAP

RAILROAD

ROADS

CITY LIMITS REV. 7-28-78 WEIDENPENERCHK. SODERLI'N1D

U. S. ARMY ENOM oDISTRICT SETLE

FLOOD PLAIN CORPS OF ENGINEES

YAKIMA RIVER LEVEE PROJECTPROJECT AREA

5 I RV "--."' IN M S a 10- -4- 257 12

SCALE IN IlLES UR--C

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

01g.

....... TCS

-7E

FRUWA LAK

DE qr&P 4 1M8

NO'E

-,AV,

~A

414 JlrI~ V. ~ :*'~ *

U. S. A RMY

Or.

200 YEAR FLOOD. . .. . .UPSTREAM OF MOXEE BRIDGE

WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT

sea ISCALE IN FEET

1 0.00 0 000 2000

* 4, 4

LEGENFLOOD PLAI LIMIT

VA jIj10 RFLOOD ANLMT

UNDER EISIN CONDITOSRIG

WITH PROJECTT ROEC

RIVE MILES A RIE LE EEPO3 C

I'10 ERFLOOD PANLMT

4ft4

~~RX-1-OpSZ

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

'opI

m AreLM~

STAA

fl -.

.,U V-- GAP

'YX

LL

U. S. ARMY

4- 200 YEAR FLOOD DOWNSTREAMOF MOXEE BRIDGE

At, WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT

[j117 45

SCALE IN FEET

?000 0 1000 2000

14 -GAPr MIT9- .. 4'.A ~ 4& Of STUDY

t 4(1 FLOO LEGENDAFLOO PLAIN LIMITS

-4 ~ UNDER EXIST ING CONDITIONS

FLOOD PLAI N LIMITSWI TH PROJECT

bd EXISTING LEVEES

a ~ ~100 YEAR FLOOD DOWNSTREAMOF MOXEE BRIDGE

w WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT

-82

REV 4 AUG ?6 SGEILSER CAPI SOOERL(tAS

+li' TA S.af om IU UU?.A

-777F. A * .L -1, 4 YAKIMA RIVER LEVEE PROJECT

FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS

ve.MEREDITH c.. SESSSUSs ,

CuIltb ATE ON CULVI~R

CROSS ANIALFLAPGATES O i,cELEVATION 1042. TE ONCL4

BURLINGTON NORTHERN43E 5EGMENT

C4-

00. 0

PLANSCALE IN FEET

20 100 2000

> 10800 END 74-00 fV 1 060 -

ROZA WASTEWAY-' ND1601060 Z 1

-- - EC~XISTING W10200 YEAR FLOOD _ -_ BANK TOP-, -oS T N D R P R O JE C T- -- -- -- .020 R O Z A W A ±

- OADADPRJET200 YEAR FLOOD WATER W

1020 F L000 WA TER SURFACE ISURFACE IN WASTEWAY

S EG0N 60402 0 DISTANCES IN 100 FT STATIONS 1614

SEGMENT06 LEFT BANK LEVEE PROFILE (ABOVE MOXEE BRIDGE)END 119.00

1080. EEISIIN IRB N > 0 l06OMEN.

40 1060O 0 760-

* WATER SURFACE ------ " GT

080 SEG ESTNDAR B RVEWRO X i STANDAPD PROJECT--EITIGAN TO -EXlNJ

100EXISTING GROUND LEVEL zWATER SURFACE

1020 >08060 4'0 20 0 W 180 14010 00s

SEGMENTBSEGMENTJ

RIGT BNKLEVEE PROFILE (ABOVE MOXEE BRIDGE)DISTANCES IN 100 FT STATIONS

- - * . --At~

LEGEND

EXISTING RECOMMENDED

LEVEE_____

- CULVERT

I GATE

-I CULVERT WITHGATE

4 V EMERGENCY PRO-TECTION (SEE NOTE 21

W RIPRAP IMPROVEMENT(SEE NOTE 1)

141 RAISE HEIGHT OFEXISTING LEVEE

LEVEE TYPE44 w (SEE NOTE 1)

NOTES:

1. FOR LEVEE SECTIONS (TYPES) SEE PLATE 6.

2. SANDBAGS OR TEMPORARY BERM CLOSURE

DURING FLOOD

PLANSCALE IN FEET

0 10 2000)

EN1500

ZA WASTEISTINWATERRFACE

'O0L (ATNGBOVTO MOXEE BRIDGE) EMN

102, r r -

EXITIN WATW- ATRSUFCIEI i ANNDRDEROET

E lITIN RANKD TOPE EXITINTERAC

-O L (AOV HEGHT BRIDGE EMN

- - + -

SURAC T~20YA FOD-

SURAC Al00 YEAR FLOODEEPWJ

VAK &VROY L EEE ROJ[

(ABOVE MOXEE BRIDGE) T D8-4-25T7 -IT STATIONS PLATE 5llmm

ii

0 1Q00 200

.0 -4-

-IOF IN'

EXI>ING ECORMIENOED

-, LEVEL

SALTER

RIPRAP IMPROVEMEN'

E.ERSENVV PROTEGS. ON GSEE NOTE 2'

4 LEVEE TYPE

NOTES

.1~ G~3~VI FOR LEVER SECTIONS (TYPE- GEE PLV'E6

2 GAICRAG OR TtMPORARY RERR -C5URE COURNO P000

,. j3 SEE APPENDIX 1SECION E FOR OISCUSSION OPALTERNATE LEVEL ALIGNMENT.........

EET

2000

-T ETING TYIGRAAY 24 EMRANKMPENT

PTAOR ROE! .2< V - <01A

T0 AXX IIN I I- AS j'

FLOOD *ATER SURlaVIP

P7.000 AN'V 75#VACL

LEVEE 1 TAME N 1 1 -C 7 ON"

RIGHT BANK LEVEE (BELOW MOXEE BRIDGE)* - PROFILE

rRfp 28 JlIOT T8 ME I DNBEAN SPAR soDERL4AC-

u. S. ANY UiOIm SfRS? Mfucom~ or 5wwm

gBRIDGE)YAKIMA RIRER LEEE PROJECT

PLIAN k PROFILES

YAKIMA P11 IN TARIMN .AS....~

O's 4 2R? MAREPA 77 A

RIPRAP ADDITION 12'

200-YEAR FLOOD 3'WATER SURFACEJ Ea',NGI4 TOPSOIL

EXISTING CHANNEL BOTTOM 2' 1IF.~' T XST IN RI.PRAP '

1.5 1.5S

TYPE V

RIPRAP ADDITION 12'

SEE NOTE 22:~- B1YA ID-j6 TOPSOIL &

200YEAR FLOOD WATER SURFACE

3 2'EXISTING GROUND OR CHANNEL BOTTOM I

VARIES Q'3 I / EXISTING RIPRAP el S2' 1

EXISTING LEVEE

TYPE VI

200-YEAR FLOOD WATER SURFACE ' ~ 2' 6 OSI

3 ,

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL RTH 1 XS~N EE

2' AKILL EXSTN LEVE S

2' 1.

TYPE VII

SXEET NOTL BOTTOMS0L EE

200- YPE FLOV WTRSUF2IT I

B' TYPE IX

TYPE VIII AND TYPE IX

12'.6 TOPSOIL & SEED

EXISTiNG LEVEE

4 ISTING GROUND LEVEL

0- STRIPPING

TYPE V

e- TOPSOIL SEED

ESTING GROUND LEVEL

6" STRIPPING

EXISTING LEVEE

TYPE VI

D' 5' 10, 15,6' TOPSOIL & SEED

SCALE IN FEET

TING GROUND LEVEL TPICAL SECTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES

EXISTING LEVEE

TYIPE VN

6 TSOIL & SEED

EN GROUND LEVEL

LEVEE 0 STRIPPN IEI /1FRASOIINOTE: 1. SLOPE OF LEVEE ON LANDWARD DE IS 2/1 FOR A . 27 JY D

LEVEE HEIGHT OF 10' OR LESS AND 3/1 FOR A HEIGHTOVER 10' u.s. AINAT ININNE INWVIc, "Ama

CORM Op INiSillIR. EXISTING LEVEES ARE TO BE RAISED TO PROVIDE 3' ,,.*,FREEBOARD PLUS ALLOWANCE FOR AGGREDATION AND / YAKIMA RIvER LEVEE PROJECTOR SWELLHEAD

3. RIPRAPPED AREAS WHERE ROCK..NOT EXTENDED INTO LEVEE SECTIONS

FREEBOARD ZONE ARE LISTED IN TABLE E-I ABOVE MOXEE mOOAEYAKIMA RIVER YAIMA. WASIENGTON

O44*6T2.?

12 '6 " TO PSOIL & SEED200- YEAR FLOOD WATER SURFACE LNWR IES~E(E OE1

6" TOPSL & SEED2

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL--------------------------- -EART FILL-

7W 6 S -TRIPPING71

Exis

TYPE 1

r S TOPSOIL SSEED

EXISTING GR3OUND LEVEL

EARTH BACKFILL

PEE itTYEII

6 TOPSOIL & SEED

200-- YEA FLOO WAER SR_ Ell TING GROUND LEY&~

EXISTING CHANNEL S-OrGM

0, 5

TYPE IV SCALE *k

TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR PROPOSED NEW LEVEES

.. ..

8' TOPSOIL & SEED

LANDWARD SIDE SLOPE (SEE NOTE 11

00-YEARI FLOOD WATER SURFACE

--- -- -- -- LOW WATER SURFACE2

EXISTING CHANNEL B TTOM EITN -2HGWYEBNMN

73'9 L 2ADD RIPRAP

12'8" TOPSOIL 8 SEED TYPE X

EARTH Fill

________ -- - -TYPICAL SECTION FOR 1-82 HIGHWAY BANK PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT

8'STRIPPING

NOTES: 1. SLOPE OF LEVEE ON LANDWARD SIDE IS 2/1 FOR A LEVEE HEIGHTOF 10' OR LESS AND 3/1 FOR A HEIGHT OVER 10'

2. NEW LEVEES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 3* OF FREEBOARD,

3. RPRAPPED AREAS WHERE ROCK NOT EXTENDED INTO FREEBOARDZONE ARE LISTED IN TABLE E-11

8' TOPSOIL 8SEED

EARTH FILL JI-- EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

e'STRIPPING

01 51 10 is,

riSCALE IN FEET 8E.2 UY1 EDEIBEIR CW. SOOEPLIIID

U. S Amy ineoIMn ISTEP", BIAUiCORPS oP onsg...,

p~oP8EO EW LVEESYAKIMA RIVER LEVEE PROJECT

LEVEE SECTIONS

BELOW MOXEE BSRIDGE

YAPGA.A RIVER YAK(IMA, WASH-